George D. Jones v. State of Indiana

FILED
Oct 26 2016, 8:48 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Ray L. Szarmach Gregory F. Zoeller
Merrillville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Kyle Hunter
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
George D. Jones, October 26, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
89A01-1604-MI-937
v. Appeal from the Wayne Superior
Court
State of Indiana, et al., The Honorable Darrin M.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Dolehanty, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
89D03-1602-MI-6
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] George D. Jones appeals the denial of his petition for specialized driving
privileges, which he filed about six and a half years after having his Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 1 of 6
driver’s license suspended for life by the trial court. On appeal, Jones contends
that the trial court improperly denied his petition. Jones asks that we remand
the case to the trial court with instructions to stay the lifetime suspension and
issue specialized driving privileges with the condition that he be required to use
a photo/video ignition interlock device.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] In 2009, Jones pled guilty to class D felony operating a motor vehicle after
being suspended as a habitual traffic violator (Count I) and class D felony
operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) with a prior OWI conviction
within five years (Count II). Pursuant to the plea agreement, on July 27, 2009,
the trial court sentenced Jones on Count I to three years in prison and
suspended Jones’s license to drive for life. On Count II, Jones was sentenced to
a concurrent term of three years in prison and his license to drive was
suspended for two years.
[4] After his release from prison in 2010, Jones moved to Mississippi and began
working for a roofing company as a laborer. He is now the operations manager
of the company’s Biloxi, Mississippi location. Jones is being considered for a
promotion, which would require a driver’s license and regular travel between
Mississippi and Louisiana. He cannot obtain a Mississippi driver’s license
without first having his driving privileges restored in Indiana.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 2 of 6
[5] On February 17, 2016, Jones, then age thirty-six, filed a verified petition for
specialized driving privileges1 with the trial court that had previously suspended
his driving privileges for life. Jones alleged, among other things, that he has
had no contact with the criminal justice system since his release from prison
and has had no driving violations. Additionally, he noted that he has recently
obtained sole physical custody of his two young children. 2 Jones asserted that
specialized driving privileges were necessary in order for him to work and
properly care for his children.
[6] On March 23, 2016, the trial court held a hearing on the petition. At the
hearing, Jones presented evidence that he had recently obtained automobile
liability insurance. He also provided the court with his driving routes for work,
the grocery, and the doctor. The State presented no evidence at the hearing and
made no recommendation to the trial court. After discussing the viability and
enforceability of using an ignition interlock device with photo or video
capability, the trial court took the matter under advisement.
1
Jones brought his petition pursuant to Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4, but this statute applies only to suspensions by
administrative action, not court order. His petition is more aptly considered under I.C. § 9-30-16-3, a similar
provision that addresses petitions for specialized driving privileges for suspensions ordered by a court.
Further, we observe that Jones did not file a petition for rescission of his suspension order and reinstatement
of driving privileges under I.C. § 9-30-10-14.1, which deals with petitions regarding lifetime suspensions for
habitual traffic violators. Because the issue has not been raised on appeal, we will not address the interplay
between I.C. § 9-30-10-14.1 and I.C. § 9-30-16-3.
2
Legal custody remained with the Perry County Department of Family and Children Services in Mississippi.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[7] The trial court issued an order denying the petition on March 29, 2016. The
order provided in pertinent part:
This matter was before the Court for hearing on a Petition for
Specialized Driving Privileges. Having considered the evidence
presented, and having taken the matter under advisement, the
Court concludes that the Petition should be denied.
The Petitioner works as the “Operations Manager” for a
construction-related business based in Mississippi, having worked
his way up the corporate ladder. The Petitioner has resided
outside of Indiana for six (6) years. The Petitioner’s job duties
take him regularly throughout the states of Mississippi and
Louisiana. The Petitioner’s driving privileges were forfeited for
life, on or about July 27, 2009, following conviction for
Operating a Vehicle After Suspension as an Habitual Traffic
Violator. The Petitioner has been twice convicted for OWI-related
offenses in the State of Indiana. The Petitioner’s Indiana BMV record
reflects approximately twenty-seven (27) traffic-related convictions, dating
back to 1997.
Based upon these findings, the Court concludes that it is not
reasonable to craft an order granting specialized privileges that
can be reasonably enforced by the Court, yet still meet the needs
of the Petitioner, without compromising public safety.
Appendix at 22 (emphasis supplied). Jones appeals from this order.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 4 of 6
[8] Jones acknowledges that the decision to grant or deny a petition for specialized
driving privileges is reviewable only for an abuse of discretion.3 See Lambert v.
Shipman, 53 N.E.3d 1198, 1202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). An abuse of discretion
will be found only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has
misinterpreted the law. See Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Car-X Assoc. Corp., 39
N.E.3d 652, 655 (Ind. 2015). On review, we neither reweigh the evidence nor
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. See id.; State v. Downey, 14
N.E.3d 812, 815 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[9] On appeal, Jones argues that he presented overwhelming evidence of
substantial positive changes in his life since his suspension. Further, he asserts
that enforcement of an ignition interlock system would not be difficult and that
it could be monitored in Mississippi the same as it would be in Indiana.
[10] We cannot conclude that the trial court abused its broad discretion in this case.
As observed by the trial court, Jones is a habitual traffic violator with
approximately twenty-seven traffic-related convictions since 1997 and two OWI
convictions in 2004 and 2009. He currently resides in Mississippi, a substantial
distance away from Indiana, and his request suggests that he will be driving
regularly in Mississippi and Louisiana and occasionally with two small
3
The trial court’s almost unfettered discretion is evidenced by I.C. § 9-30-16-3’s silence as to when a petition
for specialized driving privileges is sufficient and a petitioner is entitled to such privileges. See B.Z. v. State,
943 N.E.2d 384, 389-90 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Indeed, the Legislature has provided no statutory standard
under which a trial court must review such a petition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 5 of 6
children. The trial court’s concerns about enforceability and public safety under
the specific circumstances of this case4 support its decision to deny Jones’s
petition. We reject the invitation to reweigh the evidence and substitute our
judgment for that of the trial court.
[11] Judgment affirmed.
[12] Bradford, J. and Pyle, J., concur.
4
Contrary to Jones’s suggestion on appeal, the trial court did not interpret the statute to necessarily preclude
granting specialized driving privileges to out-of-state petitioners. The record establishes that the trial court
thoroughly considered enforceability concerns in light of the particular circumstances presented in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 89A01-1604-MI-937 | October 26, 2016 Page 6 of 6