dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority's conclusion the trial court did not establish a sufficient factual basis to support Cooper's guilty plea, I do not believe Cooper has demonstrated he was prejudiced by the error. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
A trial court may not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty "unless it is satisfied from its examination of the defendant or the evidence presented that there is a factual basis for the plea." Ind.Code § 35-35-1-8(b). However, an individual seeking to vacate a guilty plea due to the lack of a factual basis must also demonstrate he was prejudiced by the failure to establish the factual basis. State v. Ei-*362land, 723 N.E.2d 863, 864-65 (Ind.2000). Cooper alleges:
1) a material error had occurred when the BMV originally determined that Cooper was a[n] habitual traffic violator; 2) the Bureau of Motor Vehicles later corrected this error and removed the incorrect HTV determination from Cooper's driving record as required by Indiana Code [section] 9-30-10-6; and 3) Cooper was not validly determined to be an] habitual traffic violator in the first place.
Brief of Appellee at 8. Cooper further alleges had he known these facts, he would not have pled guilty to the charge. In essence, then, Cooper argued he was prejudiced by the conviction itself. The post-conviction court and the majority agree.
As evidence he was not an habitual traffic violator on the date he was charged, Cooper submitted a certified copy of his Indiana Official Driver Record dated December 4, 2008. In response, the State submitted a certified copy of Cooper's driver record dated May 19, 1999. While the 1999 record lists a five-year suspension for being an habitual traffic violator on April 15, 1996, the 2008 record omits the same entry. However, Cooper's 2008 driver record still contains numerous notices of suspension informing Cooper he had been declared an habitual traffic violator on April 15, 1996, as well as two prior misdemeanor convictions for operating while an habitual traffic violator on June 11, 1997, and September 24, 1997. Noticeably, Cooper's 2008 driver record does not contain a notice informing him the BMV discovered a material error, or that it was reinstating his driving privileges, and Cooper did not submit any other documentary evidence so indicating. Further, Cooper's 2008 driver record indicates he has not held a valid driver's license since at least December 6, 1997.
In addition, a review of Cooper's convie-tions clearly indicates he qualified as an habitual traffic violator on April 15, 1996. Indiana Code section 9-80-10-4 defines an habitual traffic violator as a person who has accumulated: three judgments within a ten year period for, among other things, driving while suspended as a result of a conviction "under ... [Indiana Code seetion] 9-24-18-5(b) (repealed July 1, 2000), [Indiana Code section]} 9-24-19-8, or [Indiana Code section]} 9-24-19-5;" or ten judgments within a ten year period for any traffic violation required to be reported to the BMV. As of April 15, 1996, Cooper had accumulated five convictions for driving while suspended pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-24-18-5(b) (repealed July 1, 2000) on December 5, 1993, December 830, 1993, February 12, 1994, March 14, 1994, and April 20, 1994. In addition, Cooper had accumulated a total of fifteen traffic convictions in around seven and one-half years. Therefore, based on my review of Cooper's driver record, I disagree with the conclusion of the post-conviction court and the majority that Cooper was not an habit, ual traffic violator at the time he was charged with the underlying offense. As a result, I would conclude Cooper has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to establish a sufficient factual basis for his guilty plea, and I would reverse the decision granting Cooper's petition for post-conviction relief.