ILNews

Woman’s convictions are crimes of violence, justifying sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the state Thursday that a woman’s Class D felony drunken-driving convictions are considered “crimes of violence” under Indiana law, so there was no error when the trial court imposed a seven-year consecutive sentence.

Wendy Thompson was drinking alcohol while driving along U.S. Highway 36 in Parke County when she rear-ended Tina Redman’s car, causing it to hit a Jeep Cherokee driving in the opposite direction. Redman had slowed down for an Amish wagon. The accident resulted in serious injuries to Redman, her daughter, and the two passengers in the Cherokee.

Thompson’s BAC was 0.25 and she also tested positive for benzodiazepines, for which she had a valid prescription. But the drug intensifies the effects of alcohol.

The state charged her with eight counts, but Thompson pleaded guilty to four Class D felony operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 causing serious bodily injury. She was sentenced to three years each for Counts I and II and 180 days each for Counts III and IV. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for a total of seven years, with two years suspended to probation.

Thompson argued before the trial court and again on appeal that she couldn’t be sentenced to consecutive sentences longer than four years based on I.C. 35-50-1-2(c). This section says the total consecutive terms of imprisonment shall not exceed the advisory sentence for a felony one class higher than the most serious of the felonies for which a person has been convicted.

In Thompson’s case, this would be the advisory sentence of four years for a Class C felony. She would be correct as long as her crime is not considered a “crime of violence,” the appellate court held, finding her Class D felonies to qualify under this distinction. Thus, the maximum-sentence restriction does not apply.

The judges relied on the statutory citation next to the text of the offense under subdivision 15, “Operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury to another person (IC 9-30-5-4).” They believed the citation to the statute is evidence that the Legislature intended to include both crimes within the definition of a “crime of violence.”

The COA also upheld her sentence, noting the significant injuries the vehicle occupants suffered – and continue to deal with today – as well as Thompson’s inability to admit the extent of her problems with alcohol.

The case is Wendy Thompson v. State of Indiana, 61A01-1305-CR-207.


 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT