ILNews

COA: enhancement isn't an ex post facto violation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The enhancement of a man’s conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated because of a prior OWI conviction did not constitute an ex post facto violation, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday. The man argued it was a violation because his prior conviction occurred before the enactment of the enhancement statute.

Joseph Simmons appealed his conviction of Class C felony OWI and the eight-year sentence handed down by Jennings Circuit Judge Jon W. Webster. The truck driven by Simmons was pulled over after a person called police believing the occupants of the truck may be drunk. When police pulled over Simmons’ truck, he had trouble standing, smelled of alcohol and refused the field sobriety tests. When he attempted to do some of them at the police station, he was unable to complete them and even commented “I can’t do that sober.” He blew a blood alcohol content of 0.19.

Simmons faced several charges relating to drinking and driving and was convicted on all counts except for a charge of driving while suspended. The judge merged all the OWI convictions with the conviction of Class C felony OWI with a prior conviction for OWI causing death.

In Joseph Simmons v. State of Indiana, No. 40A05-1101-CR-10, Simmons argued that the enhancement of his OWI conviction to a Class C felony, which is based on his prior conviction for OWI causing death, is an ex post facto violation because the enhancement statute was enacted after his conviction for OWI causing death. The appellate judges found Simmons case to be controlled by Funk v. State, 427 N.E.2d 1081 (Ind. 1981), a case in which the defendant claimed that the general habitual offender statute was an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

“Simmons is not being re-punished for his prior crime, nor has the penalty for his prior crime been enhanced. He is simply being punished as a recidivist based upon his most recent act of OWI. And he is being punished under the version of the statute which was effective at the time he committed his most recent OWI,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The judges found sufficient evidence to support his convictions and that his sentence is appropriate given his criminal history. The judge pointed to Simmons light-hearted banter with police while taking his sobriety tests, which they found troubling given that Simmons has been convicted of OWI causing death.

“When Simmons killed another person as a result of his drunken driving, it should have been a life-altering experience for him. However, Simmons seems to have not altered his behavior at all. Simmons is a recidivist, lethal drunk driver whose behavior has obviously been undeterred by his prior contact with the criminal justice system. His prior convictions, as they relate to the current offense, reflect very poorly on his character,” wrote Mathias.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT