NFP opinion gives us pause

July 20, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This blog post was written by Indiana Lawyer reporter Rebecca Berfanger.

Typically we don’t give the not-for-publication opinions from the Indiana Court of Appeals too much thought, but one today definitely caught our attention.

As the person compiling opinions today, I was the first to read this particular NFP. I spent a little extra time on it because the appellant-defendant posited the issue: “Whether the State violated (his) rights to due process and to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment” after he pled guilty to five counts of operating while intoxicated as Class D felonies.

It turned out the cruel and unusual punishment claim didn’t much matter because it was based on the amount of time that passed between the incidents and the charges, but the Court of Appeals opinion states “prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment proscribes atrocious or obsolete punishments and is aimed at the kind and form of the punishment, rather than the duration or amount.”

But what was interesting was that the appellant-defendant met up with an officer of just about every police and sheriff’s department in Hamilton County in the course of only a few months.

The case, Christopher W. Turner v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-0905-CR-479, is about a man who between May 21, 2008 and Sept. 9, 2008, had his blood drawn for testing on five reported occasions following five separate incidents where officers suspected he’d been operating under the influence.

During the first incident, on May 21, 2008, officers with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department found Turner after he apparently struck a tree with his car. He was unconscious and injured, and the officers transported him to the hospital. However – no charges were filed for this incident until Sept. 16.

On June 17, 2008, a Carmel Police officer pulled Turner over for driving erratically. He failed field sobriety tests and the officer had Turner’s blood drawn. At that time, he was arrested but released the next day after posting $7,500 bond. Charges were filed on that incident Aug. 4.

On June 21, 2008, a Westfield Police officer stopped Turner, who once again failed field sobriety tests and once again had his blood drawn at the hospital. He was again arrested and jailed, but released two days later after the state told the court it would not file charges at that time.

Turner was again pulled over July 5, 2008. Again failed field sobriety tests. Again had his blood drawn. Again no charges filed at the time of incident.

Charges were ultimately filed July 18 for the June 21 incident, and Aug. 4 for the June 17 incident.

Five days after his Sept. 4, 2008, hearing, he was pulled over by a Noblesville Police officer. He again failed field sobriety tests and again had his blood drawn. For that incident, he was arrested and jailed and the state charged him Sept. 10 for the Sept. 9 incident.

On Sept. 12, the state filed charges for the July 5 incident.

It could also be noted that he made a $50,000 bail Sept. 16, which was revoked Sept. 23.

After pleading guilty to the five charges from incidents that occurred May 21, June 17, June 21, July 5, and Sept. 9, he was sentenced to a total of 8 years.

On appeal, he claimed that the state waited on purpose to charge him.

Judge Carr L. Darden sums it up nicely in the opinion:

“Further, Turner’s argument necessarily implies that the State had knowledge that after his arrest on May 21st, Turner would not act in accordance with the law but would instead choose to commit additional criminal offenses. Certainly there is no evidence in the record to support our drawing such an inference. If he is suggesting that his guilty plea should be set aside on this basis, post-conviction relief procedures provide for an evidentiary hearing to establish any possible factual circumstances and assertions in that regard.”

But a word to the wise – if you think you were not arrested for drunk driving because the police will want to arrest you for drunk driving if you do it again, maybe just don’t do it again.

And if this individual needs treatment, hopefully someone in his life can convince him of that after he’s released from prison before something worse happens.

As someone with very little knowledge of these kinds of cases, is this typical or is it out of the ordinary to wait months to face charges after committing essentially the same crime four more times?
 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Hamilton County
    In Hamilton County, it is not unusual for it to take months to get results of a blood draw back, then charges are filed, if the results indicate driving under the influence.
    • Hamilton County
      What is unusual is that the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office will not file charges pending the results of the blood test, a practice not followed by other counties. Hamilton County's practice allows drunk drivers to keep on driving without posting bonds or receiving license suspensions, even if the drivers have refused the breath test.

    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
    1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

    3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

    4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

    5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

    ADVERTISEMENT