With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of indictments, the Mississippi Supreme Court has observed that amending the date of the alleged offense is a change of form only where time is not an essential element or factor in the indictment.” Givens [v. State], 730 So.2d [81,] 87 (¶ 19) [(Miss.Ct.App.1998) ] (citation omitted). Id. at (¶ 33). The amendment to Peterson’s indictment did not alter Peterson’s defense in any way and was, therefore, proper. ¶ 42. Peterson further claims that the State did not prove the length of time Peterson served on his prior offenses. However, section 99-19-81 does not require that Peterson actually serve more than one year; instead, it merely requires that Peterson received a sentence for one year or more for two separate convictions. See Hewlett v. State, 607 So.2d 1097, 1105 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>) Accordingly, this issue has no merit. ¶ 43.

A: holding that summary judgment is appropriate when no issue of material fact exists and the court is reviewing administrative record for sufficiency of evidence
B: holding that the fact that there was no actual incarceration does not affect the sufficiency of the sentences as evidence of habitualoffender status
C: holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial
B.