Hamilton County attorney drunken-driving charges include a felony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorney arrested July 7 on suspicion of drunken driving in Hamilton County faces two charges from the incident, including a Class D felony because of a prior conviction.

Marietto “Mario” V. Massillamany, 36, was pulled over on 96th Street in Hamilton County at around 7:30 a.m. by a Hamilton County sheriff’s deputy, who conducted an operating while intoxicated investigation. Massillamany was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.

 The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office filed charges Thursday against Massillamany for OWI with a previous conviction, a Class D felony, and operating while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor.

Massillamany, of Fishers, pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor OWI endangering a person in March 2010 while he was spokesman for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. A second charge of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.15 or more was dismissed.

Massillamany’s driver’s license was suspended and he was ordered to complete probation and community service as part of his sentence.

He resigned from the prosecutor’s office after the arrest and was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in May 2011. As part of his discipline, Massillamany executed a monitoring agreement with the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

If convicted on the felony charge, Massillamany faces possible suspension by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Massillamany’s practice at Barnes & Thornburg focuses on legislative and procurement issues, as well as government regulation matters and public finance.



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. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit