Appellant appeals his conviction of dealing in stolen property and sentence as a habitual felony offender to thirty years in prison. Over appellant’s objection, the trial court declared a mistrial on the charge of first-degree murder. Appellant argues that there was no manifest necessity for the trial court to declare a mistrial and therefore any retrial in the future on this charge would be barred by double jeopardy. We find this issue is prematurely raised and therefore we do not reach the merits of appellant’s argument. We find the other remaining six issues to be without merit and affirm.

Affirmed.