ILNews

Court affirms guilty but mentally ill sentence in DUI, resisting case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A six-year sentence for a man who fled from Greensburg police while intoxicated, crashed his van, injured his passenger and ran from the scene was affirmed Friday by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

In Dale Douglas Perkins Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 16A01-1112-CR-603, judges unanimously ruled that the Decatur Superior Court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive three-year sentences after Perkins pleaded guilty but mentally ill to charges of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated as a Class D felony and resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony. When he was arrested, Perkins’ blood alcohol level was more than three times the legal limit.

The state dropped charges of criminal confinement and being a habitual substance offender in the plea agreement.

Perkins argued that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive sentences because his “crimes are intertwined,” according to court pleadings.

The panel also dismissed Perkins’ argument that the sentence was inappropriate due to his mental health. A court-ordered psychiatric evaluation determined that Perkins, 38 at the time of his conviction, was psychotic. He had been diagnosed as schizophrenic in his youth.

Judges ruled that Perkins had been able to control his behavior during incarceration and that his long criminal record in Indiana and Florida, including repeat DUI convictions and crimes including burglary, theft and attempted robbery, didn’t make the sentence inappropriate.

“Perkins keeps committing the same offenses, demonstrating that he has not learned that when he drinks alcohol he will commit unlawful acts,” Senior Judge William Garrard wrote for the panel.   

“We conclude that the nexus between his mental illness and the instant offenses is not so strong as to require a different result,” Garrard wrote. “Perkins’ mental illness does not render his sentence inappropriate, particularly in light of the manner in which Perkins committed these offenses.”


 

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. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT