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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT