ILNews

Former Marion County prosecutor spokesman pleads guilty

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former spokesman for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office has pleaded guilty to a drunk driving charge and been sentenced to jail.

Marietto “Mario” Massillamany was arrested in March in Hamilton County after police stopped him for speeding and driving in the wrong lane. He was charged with two Class A misdemeanors: OWI endangering a person, and operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.15 or more. He pleaded guilty to the first count Dec. 15 in Hamilton Superior Court 6.

The plea agreement calls for him to serve 365 days in jail with 305 days suspended. Massillamany will serve 32 days because he won’t receive any good time credit due to a prior conviction. He’ll receive 305 days on probation, which includes 150 hours of community service. His driver’s license, which was already suspended after his arrest, will be suspended through October 2012 due to terms of the plea agreement and because he refused to submit to a chemical test after his arrest.

David Riggins of the Shelby County Prosecutor’s Office was assigned as special prosecutor because Massillamany had previously worked in the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office. At the time of his arrest, he was the spokesman for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office, and resigned after his arrest. He’s been an attorney since 2004 and the Indiana Roll of Attorneys shows he’s now an attorney with Starr Austen & Miller in Logansport.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • License
    Jim, his license was suspended after his arrest. I've updated the story to make that more clear.
  • GOP special deals.
    Previous conviction for DWI and now this one, why was his driver's license not revoked for life? Had he been anyone else, it would have been. And only 30 days in jail, well that does not seem to stack with other people who are convicted.

    The standards should be / must be higher than the regular public, but here it is much less. To be caught driving with suspended license smacks of total disregard for the law and a place of special favors due to position.

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT