Danny R. Slawnikowski v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    Feb 16 2016, 8:41 am
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of establishing
    the defense of res judicata, collateral
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                   ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Clay M. Patton                                           Gregory F. Zoeller
    Osan & Patton, LLP                                       Attorney General of Indiana
    Valparaiso, Indiana
    Karl M. Scharnberg
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Danny R. Slawnikowski,                                   February 16, 2016
    Appellant-Defendant,                                     Court of Appeals Case No.
    64A05-1509-CR-1417
    v.                                               Appeal from the Porter Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                        The Honorable David L.
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                      Chidester, Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    64D04-1409-F6-8567
    Najam, Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016   Page 1 of 3
    Statement of the Case
    [1]   Danny R. Slawnikowski appeals his sentence following his conviction for
    domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. Slawnikowski raises a single issue
    for our review, namely, whether his sentence of one year was inappropriate in
    light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. But we need
    only address the following dispositive issue: whether this appeal is moot. We
    dismiss.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   On the morning of September 27, 2014, Slawnikowski woke up his wife,
    Elizabeth, after realizing he would be late to work and she would be late in
    picking up her son. Soon after Elizabeth arose from bed, Slawnikowski and
    Elizabeth got into a verbal and physical altercation with one another.
    Immediately after the altercation, Slawnikowski left the residence and Elizabeth
    called the police to report the incident. Shortly thereafter, officers of the
    Chesterton Police Department arrived and arrested Slawnikowski.
    [3]   The State charged Slawnikowski with strangulation, as a Level 6 Felony, and
    domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. The jury found Slawnikowski not
    guilty of strangulation but guilty of domestic battery. Following a sentencing
    hearing, the trial court sentenced Slawnikowski to 365 days in the Porter
    County Jail. Sent. Tr. at 9. Slawnikowski completed his sentence in late July
    of 2015.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016   Page 2 of 3
    Discussion and Decision
    [4]   On appeal, Slawnikowski argues that his one year sentence is inappropriate in
    light of the nature of the offense and his character. But we need only address
    whether this appeal is moot since he has already completed his sentence.
    [5]   The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a “case is deemed moot and will be
    dismissed when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the
    court.” In re Lawrence, 
    579 N.E.2d 32
    , 37 (Ind. 1991). Once a defendant’s
    “sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered
    moot.” Lee v. State, 
    816 N.E.2d 35
    , 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004). Indiana’s courts have
    long recognized that a case that is otherwise moot may nevertheless be decided
    on its merits when the case involves a question of “great public interest.” In re
    
    Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d at 37
    . And we have defined cases of “great public
    interest” as those that “raise important policy concerns and present issues that
    are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 
    908 N.E.2d 599
    , 603 (Ind. 2009).
    [6]   Here, Slawnikowski has already served his 365-day sentence for his domestic
    battery conviction. Thus, this court cannot provide Slawnikowski with any
    effective relief on appeal. 
    Lee, 816 N.E.2d at 40
    n.2. And this case does not fall
    under the “great public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. In re
    
    Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d at 37
    . Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this appeal
    as moot.
    [7]   Dismissed.
    Riley, J., and May, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016   Page 3 of 3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 64A05-1509-CR-1417

Filed Date: 2/16/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/16/2016