ILNews

Supreme Court grants transfer to OWI case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Oct. 22 to a case involving a conviction of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

In Clint R. Beldon v. State of Indiana, No. 43S05-0910-CR-496, the Indiana Court of Appeals had to decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a doctor's video-taped deposition at trial in lieu of her in-person testimony and if the state properly requested blood and urine test results pursuant to Indiana Code Section 9-30-6-6. The appellate court also ruled on whether the court erred in sentencing Clint Beldon by using the same prior conviction to elevate his Class A misdemeanor charge to a Class D felony, to support a habitual substance offender finding, and as an aggravating factor to support the imposition of a maximum sentence.

The Court of Appeals unanimously found the trial court erred by admitting the videotape, but the testimony was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, so the error was harmless. The judges ruled Beldon waived his argument on the blood and urine test results because he failed to raise any argument at trial concerning the state's failure to provide evidence of requests for those tests.

The appellate court also found the trial court erred by elevating Beldon's charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated to a Class D felony based on a prior conviction and enhancing his sentence in part upon a habitual sentence offender finding that relied upon the same prior conviction. The case was remanded so the trial court could remedy the sentencing defect.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT