ILNews

Judges uphold OWI conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a man who was temporarily found incompetent was detained in a facility for a period longer than his sentence would have been if he was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the denial of his motion to dismiss the charge. The appellate court held the state had a substantial interest in pursuing the conviction because the man’s license would be suspended if convicted.

Darren Matlock was convicted of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. While the charge was pending, he was found to be incompetent to stand trial and was transferred to the custody of the Richmond State Hospital. Matlock’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the charges arguing that Matlock had been in custody for a period beyond the maximum sentence he could receive if convicted. Shortly after the motion was filed, Matlock had regained competency and was released.

The motion was denied and he was found guilty. The trial court sentenced him to time served and ordered a 180-day suspension of his driver’s license.

In Darren Matlock v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1006-CR-609, the judges relied on State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281, 285 (Ind. 2008), to uphold the denial of the motion to dismiss, citing a part of that opinion in which the Indiana Supreme Court justices noted there could be a number of instances in which the state would have a legitimate interest in determining someone’s guilt or innocence even though that person was found incompetent to stand trial and had been detained for longer than she could be if convicted. The justices gave the examples of requiring registration as a sex offender or to prove status as a habitual traffic offender.

In Davis, the justices dismissed the felony offense against a woman who the court found would never regain competency to stand trial. She had been confined to a state hospital longer than the maximum period of time she could have been sentenced for the offense, so the justices found this violated her Due Process rights. They also noted the state didn’t prove that its interests outweighed Davis’ substantial liberty interest.  

Many criminal convictions have collateral consequences aside from incarceration, including impacting voting rights. But the judges declined to recognize that any potential collateral consequence is sufficient to allow the state to proceed with prosecution of a long-term incompetent individual who had already been detained in excess of the maximum sentence for the particular crime.

“We are reluctant to recognize such a rule, and believe that the ‘substantial interests’ alleged by the State to allow an exception to Davis must be interests directly related to the particular nature of the offense with which the accused is charged,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote.

In Matlock’s case, an OWI conviction requires the suspension of the defendant’s driver’s license for a period of time. His conviction could also form the basis of a habitual substance offender sentence enhancement in the future or enhance a future OWI conviction to a Class D felony, wrote the judge.

“… where the possibility exists that a defendant accused of OWI may at some point in the future regain competency and be released back into society, which release also may include the defendant driving, the State may pursue an OWI conviction even if the defendant’s incompetency caused he or she to be detained for a period in excess of the maximum possible sentence for OWI. Here, Matlock’s incompetency never was alleged to be, and in fact was not, permanent. As such, the State was not precluded from pursuing an OWI conviction against Matlock,” he wrote.

The judges also affirmed there was sufficient evidence to convict Matlock.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT