ILNews

Judges uphold sentence, but revise original opinion

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals granted a defendant and the state’s petitions for rehearing a case involving a plea agreement in order to correct a misstatement of the law.

In Travis Koontz v. State of Indiana, 29A05-1202-CR-77, the judges reaffirmed their original decision, which held Travis Koontz waived any claim of an illegal sentence by entering into a plea agreement that reduced his penal exposure. Koonz was charged with four offenses, but pleaded guilty only to driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor, and operating with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.08 or more, a Class C misdemeanor.

His sentenced included jail time and probation. When he violated his probation several months later, he filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence alleging the sentence was erroneous on its face because the combined term of imprisonment and period of probation exceeded a statutory one-year limitation.

In the original opinion, the judges misstated the law when writing, “[B]eing convicted of the per se offense rather than operating while intoxicated reduces Koontz’s exposure if he were to be arrested again for operating while intoxicated. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3 (stating that a person violating the operating while intoxicated or operating with an ACE of .08 or more commits a Class D felony if the person has a previous conviction of operating while intoxicated within five years).

“As both parties have pointed out, this is a misstatement of the law. Indiana Code section 9-30-5-2 defines ‘operating a vehicle while intoxicated’ separately from the per se offense defined in section 9-30-5-1. However, ‘previous conviction of operating while intoxicated’ is also a term defined by the Indiana Code, and it includes offenses under sections 9-30-5-1 through -9. Ind. Code § 9-13-2-130. Therefore, even a conviction of the per se offense would subject Koontz to a Class D felony charge if he were to commit another operating while intoxicated offense within five years of this conviction,” Chief Judge Margret Robb wrote. That language was stricken from the original opinion, but the judges still upheld their decision.

Judge John Baker, who originally dissented, again noted that he would reverse.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT