COA reduces woman’s OWI conviction, orders new hearing on fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A trial court did not properly determine whether a woman had the ability to pay fees owed after being convicted of a misdemeanor drunken-driving charge, so the Indiana Court of Appeals ordered the case back to the trial court. The judges also ordered her conviction reduced based on the evidence presented at trial.

Wendy Burnett was the passenger in a vehicle that struck another car. The driver drove away, but later, Burnett got behind the wheel and drove back to the scene. Officers believed she may have been intoxicated but she refused to take a breath test or certified chemical test and was arrested.

At issue is her conviction for Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. As part of her sentence, the trial court ordered Burnett to pay $200 countermeasure fee, a $250 alcohol drug services fee, $183.50 in court costs, and a $16.50 fine.

Her sentencing order does not list any probation fees, but her probation order says she must pay all court-ordered fines, costs, fees and restitution as directed. The probation department later charged her a total of $340.50 in various fees.

Burnett appealed, challenging her conviction and the fees. Regarding her conviction, the trial judge found she was not driving at the time of the accident. Judge John Baker noted that there’s no evidence Burnett drove in a manner that endangered someone when she started driving after the accident. The COA reversed her Class A misdemeanor conviction of OWI while endangering a person and ordered the lower court to enter judgment for OWI as a Class C misdemeanor and to resentence accordingly.

The judges also reversed the imposition of the probation fees.

“Because the trial court did not impose any probation fees or costs on Burnett, it was erroneous to accept the imposition of these fees without a petition from the probation department and a showing that Burnett’s financial situation has changed since the sentencing hearing,” Baker wrote.

The trial court also erred by not conducting an indigency hearing before imposing the fees, the COA ruled in Wendy Burnett v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1610-CR-2402 .


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.