Jason R. Cozmanoff v. State of Indiana ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    Oct 22 2019, 8:38 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Paul G. Stracci                                            Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    J. Michael Woods                                           Attorney General of Indiana
    Stracci Criminal Defense, P.C.                             Caryn N. Szyper
    Crown Point, Indiana                                       Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Jason R. Cozmanoff,                                        October 22, 2019
    Appellant,                                                 Court of Appeals Case No.
    19A-CR-1426
    v.                                                 Appeal from the Lake Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Salvador Vasquez,
    Appellee.                                                  Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    45G01-1203-FC-28
    Brown, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                           Page 1 of 10
    [1]   Jason R. Cozmanoff appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for
    specialized driving privileges. We affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   In March 2012, Cozmanoff was driving and struck four correctional officers
    who were running alongside the road, resulting in the death of one of the
    officers and injuries to the others, and Cozmanoff did not stop. On February 7,
    2014, following a jury trial, the court sentenced him to four years for reckless
    homicide as a class C felony under Count I; one year for criminal recklessness
    as a class A misdemeanor under Count II; one and one-half years for each of
    two counts of criminal recklessness as class D felonies under Counts III and IV;
    four years for failure to stop after an accident resulting in death as a class C
    felony under Count V; and six months for reckless driving as a class B
    misdemeanor under Count XIII. The court ordered the sentences in Counts I
    through V to be served consecutively and concurrent to that in Count XIII for
    an aggregate sentence of twelve years. The order provides in part:
    Pursuant to IC 9-30-13-4,[1] the Court orders that the defendant’s
    operator’s license be suspended for a period of three (3) years as
    1
    At the time, 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     provided in part:
    (a)      If a person commits any of the following offenses, the court that convicted the person shall
    recommend the suspension of the person’s driving privileges for a fixed period of at least
    two (2) years and not more than five (5) years:
    *****
    (2)      Reckless homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle (IC 35-42-1-5).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                                Page 2 of 10
    to Count I, by the Bureau of Motion [sic] Vehicles. Pursuant to
    IC 9-30-4-6.5,[2] the imposition of the suspensions are delayed
    until the defendant is released from the Department of
    Correction or on parole. The clerk is directed to notify the
    Bureau of Motor Vehicle.
    Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 29.
    [3]   On May 1, 2019, Cozmanoff filed a verified petition for specialized driving
    privileges citing 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3
    . 3 On May 17, 2019, Cozmanoff filed an
    amended petition for specialized driving privileges citing 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4
     4
    and alleging the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles gave notice to him that his
    license would be suspended from June 14, 2019, until June 14, 2022. He sought
    specialized driving privileges to travel for work, visitation with his children,
    medical appointments, and grocery and warehouse or department store visits.
    On May 29, 2019, the State filed a response to Cozmanoff’s amended petition
    arguing it is undisputed that his reckless homicide conviction stemmed from the
    (b)     If the court fails to recommend a fixed term of suspension, or recommends a fixed term
    that is less than the minimum term required by statute, the bureau shall impose the
    minimum period of suspension required under this section.
    (Repealed by Pub. L. No. 217-2014, § 149 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015)).
    2
    At the time, 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-4-6
    .5 provided: “If a person receives a sentence that includes: (1) a term of
    incarceration; and (2) suspension of the person’s driving privileges under this chapter; the suspension of
    driving privileges begins on the date the person is released from incarceration and not on the date the person
    is convicted.” (Repealed by Pub. L. No. 149-2015, § 99 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015)).
    3
    
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3
    (a) provides in part: “If a court orders a suspension of driving privileges under this
    chapter, . . . the court may stay the suspension and grant a specialized driving privilege as set forth in this
    section.”
    4
    
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4
    (a) provides: “An individual whose driving privileges have been suspended by the
    bureau by an administrative action and not by a court order may petition a court for specialized driving
    privileges as described in section 3(b) through 3(d) of this chapter.”
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                                  Page 3 of 10
    use of a motor vehicle and that, based on 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c), 5 he is not
    eligible for specialized driving privileges. On June 3, 2019, the court held a
    hearing and entered an order finding that Cozmanoff “is not eligible for a
    specialized driving privilege under I.C. 9-30-13-4 (repealed), now codified under
    I.C. 9-30-16-2(c)” and denying his petition for specialized driving privileges.
    Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 27.
    Discussion
    [4]   Cozmanoff claims he is not ineligible for specialized driving privileges. He
    argues that 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
     was not in effect at the time that his license
    suspension was imposed. He further argues that, for a person convicted of
    reckless homicide involving a vehicle, 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
     requires that the
    court order that person’s driving privileges suspended whereas, prior to January
    1, 2015, 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     (repealed) provided that the court would
    recommend the suspension of the person’s driving privileges and 
    Ind. Code § 9
    -
    30-4-6 provided that the bureau would suspend the person’s driving privileges.
    (12-13) He argues “I.C. § 9-30-16-2(c) is silent as to suspensions imposed by the
    Bureau, or specialized driving privileges for those suspensions under 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4
    ” and “[t]his creates two categories of license suspension based on a
    5
    
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c) provides:
    If a person is convicted of an offense that includes the element of causing the death of another
    person and the offense involved the operation of a motor vehicle or was an offense under IC 9-30-5,
    the court shall order that the person’s driving privileges are suspended for a period of at least two (2)
    years and not more than the maximum allowable period of incarceration of the criminal penalty for
    the offense. A person whose driving privileges are suspended under this section is not eligible for
    specialized driving privileges under section 3 of this chapter.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                                   Page 4 of 10
    conviction for reckless homicide: those imposed prior to the effective date of
    I.C. § 9-30-16-2, which are eligible for specialized driving privileges, and those
    imposed after the effective date, which are not eligible.” Appellant’s Brief at 16.
    [5]   The State maintains that Cozmanoff was unable to obtain relief from his license
    suspension under the applicable pre-2015 or current statutes. It argues he is
    prohibited from receiving specialized driving privileges under current 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c). It further states that “specialized driving privileges” did not exist
    in Indiana at the time his license suspension was imposed, that prior to 2015
    suspended drivers could petition for “restricted” driving permits under 
    Ind. Code § 9-24-15-2
     (repealed Jan. 1, 2015) but that individuals convicted of
    reckless homicide as a result of an automobile accident were not eligible for a
    restricted permit under 
    Ind. Code § 9-24-15-1
     (repealed Jan. 1, 2015), and thus
    that Cozmanoff was disqualified from obtaining relief from his license
    suspension under the pre-2015 statutory scheme as well as the current statute.
    Appellee’s Brief at 8-9. It asserts “the legislative intent has been clear for nearly
    30 years” and that, “[u]nder both the restricted driving permit statutes and the
    specialized driving privileges statutes, the General Assembly excluded drivers,
    like Cozmanoff, who were convicted of recklessly killing someone with their
    motor vehicle, from receiving relief from their license suspensions.” 
    Id. at 13
    .
    [6]   The decision to grant or deny a petition for specialized driving privileges is
    reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Orange v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 
    92 N.E.3d 1152
    , 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Jones v. State, 
    62 N.E.3d 1205
    ,
    1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “The trial court has ‘almost unfettered discretion’
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019        Page 5 of 10
    when deciding whether to grant a petition for specialized driving privileges.”
    
    Id.
     (citing Jones, 62 N.E.3d at 1207 n.3). A question of statutory interpretation
    is a matter of law. Id. at 1155 (citation omitted). The primary purpose in
    statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature’s intent.
    State v. Oddi-Smith, 
    878 N.E.2d 1245
    , 1248 (Ind. 2008). The best evidence of
    that intent is the language of the statute itself, and we strive to give the words in
    a statute their plain and ordinary meaning. 
    Id.
     We presume the legislature
    intended for the statutory language to be applied in a logical manner consistent
    with the statute’s underlying policy and goals. 
    Id.
    [7]   The court entered its order suspending Cozmanoff’s license in February 2014,
    and he filed his petition for specialized driving privileges in May 2019. He
    states that, “[p]rior to the creation of I.C. § 9-30-16-2, license suspensions upon
    conviction for Reckless Homicide were governed by two statutes read in
    conjunction”—
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     and 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-4-6
    . Appellant’s
    Brief at 12. Prior to January 1, 2015, 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     provided in part
    that, “[i]f a person commits any of the following offenses, the court that
    convicted the person shall recommend the suspension of the person’s driving
    privileges for a fixed period of at least two (2) years and not more than five (5)
    years: . . . Reckless homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle . . .
    .” See Pub. L. No. 217-2014, § 149 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015) (repealing). 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-4-6
    (b) provided in part that “[t]he bureau shall suspend or revoke without
    notice or hearing the current driver’s license or driving privileges and all
    certificates of registration and license plates issued or registered in the name of a
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019         Page 6 of 10
    person who is convicted of any of the following: . . . reckless homicide resulting
    from the operation of a motor vehicle . . . .” See Pub. Law No. 188-2015, § 104
    (eff. Jul. 1, 2015), Pub. Law No. 198-2016, § 597 (eff. Jul. 1, 2016) (repealing). 6
    [8]   Also prior to 2015, 
    Ind. Code § 9-24-15-2
     provided that “[i]f . . . an individual’s
    driving privileges have been suspended,” “because of the nature of the
    individual’s employment, the suspension would work an undue hardship and
    burden upon the individual’s family or dependents,” and “the individual is not
    ineligible for restricted driving privileges under section 1 of this chapter,” then
    the individual may file a petition for “restricted driving privileges” for the
    purpose of driving to and from work and in the course of employment during
    the period of the driving license suspension. See Pub. Law No. 217-2014, § 87
    (eff. Jan. 1, 2015) (repealing). 
    Ind. Code § 9-24-15-1
     provided that the chapter
    did “not apply to the following: . . . When suspension of driving privileges is by
    reason of: . . . (C) the applicant has been convicted of . . . reckless homicide as a
    result of an automobile accident.” See Pub. Law No. 217-2014, § 87 (eff. Jan. 1,
    2015) (repealing).
    [9]   
    Ind. Code §§ 9-30-16
    , governing “specialized driving privileges,” became
    effective on January 1, 2015. See Pub. L. No. 217-2014 § 154 (eff. Jan. 1, 2015).
    
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3
    (a) provides in part that, “[i]f a court orders a suspension
    6
    
    Ind. Code § 9-30-4-6
    .1, which became effective January 1, 2016, provides in subsection (a) that “[t]he
    bureau shall suspend or revoke the current driver’s license or driving privileges . . . of an individual who is
    convicted of any of the following: . . . reckless homicide resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle,” and
    in subsection (c) that “[a]n individual whose driving privileges are suspended under this chapter is eligible for
    specialized driving privileges under IC 9-30-16.”
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                                Page 7 of 10
    of driving privileges under this chapter, . . . the court may stay the suspension
    and grant a specialized driving privilege as set forth in this section.”
    Subsections (b) through (d) of 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3
     set forth the requirements
    of a petition for specialized driving privileges and indicate that privileges
    granted shall be for 180 days to two and one-half years and that the terms of
    specialized driving privileges must be determined by a court. 
    Ind. Code § 9-30
    -
    16-4(a) provides that “[a]n individual whose driving privileges have been
    suspended by the bureau by an administrative action and not by a court order
    may petition a court for specialized driving privileges as described in section
    3(b) through 3(d) of this chapter.” 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c) provides:
    If a person is convicted of an offense that includes the element of
    causing the death of another person and the offense involved the
    operation of a motor vehicle or was an offense under IC 9-30-5,
    the court shall order that the person’s driving privileges are
    suspended for a period of at least two (2) years and not more than
    the maximum allowable period of incarceration of the criminal
    penalty for the offense. A person whose driving privileges are
    suspended under this section is not eligible for specialized driving
    privileges under section 3 of this chapter.
    [10]   Here, the trial court’s February 7, 2014 order provides “the Court orders that
    the defendant’s operator’s license be suspended for a period of three (3) years as
    to Count I, by the Bureau of Motion [sic] Vehicles.” Appellant’s Appendix
    Volume II at 29. The order was consistent with 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     (repealed
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019       Page 8 of 10
    eff. Jan. 1, 2015) in effect at the time. 7 We observe that, prior to January 1,
    2015, due to his conviction for reckless homicide as a result of an automobile
    accident, Cozmanoff would not have been eligible for restricted driving
    privileges. See 
    Ind. Code §§ 9-24-15-1
     and -2 (repealed eff. Jan. 1, 2015).
    Additionally, pursuant to 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c), he is not eligible for
    specialized driving privileges under 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3
     because his offense
    under Count I included the element of causing the death of another person and
    the offense involved the operation of a motor vehicle. Also, although now-
    repealed 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-13-4
     provided that the court “shall recommend the
    suspension” of the person’s driving privileges whereas 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c)
    provides the court “shall order” that the person’s privileges be suspended, we
    note that on February 7, 2014, the trial court ordered that Cozmanoff’s license
    be suspended, and we are not persuaded that he may now obtain specialized
    driving privileges by way of 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4
     which relates to individuals
    whose driving privileges were suspended by administrative action and not by a
    court order. We conclude the trial court’s denial of Cozmanoff’s petition for
    specialized driving privileges gives effect to the legislature’s intent.
    [11]   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    [12]   Affirmed.
    7
    The order of suspension is also consistent with the current provisions of 
    Ind. Code § 9-30-16-2
    (c) (“the court
    shall order that the person’s driving privileges are suspended for a period of at least two (2) years and not
    more than the maximum allowable period of incarceration of the criminal penalty for the offense”).
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019                              Page 9 of 10
    Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-1426 | October 22, 2019   Page 10 of 10
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19A-CR-1426

Filed Date: 10/22/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2019