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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT