Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the State of Indiana v. Adam Staton (mem.dec)
57A03-1608-MI-1946
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 18, 2017Background
- Adam Staton had three separate Habitual Traffic Violator (HTV) suspensions: two BMV administrative suspensions (expiring Jan 13, 2023 and Nov 13, 2023) and a 99-year (effectively lifetime) suspension following a felony conviction in LaGrange Superior Court (cause no. 44D01-1306-FD-114).
- Staton filed a verified petition for specialized driving privileges under Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4 in Noble Superior Court (his county of residence) on April 22, 2016; the hearing occurred May 10, 2016.
- The Noble County Prosecutor appeared and stated no objection to granting the petition; the BMV was served but did not appear at the hearing.
- The Noble trial court granted specialized driving privileges addressing all three suspensions (including the LaGrange conviction-based suspension) and described the latter as a “lifetime or indefinite bureau imposed suspension.”
- The BMV later moved to intervene and filed a motion to correct error; the trial court denied the motion. The State and BMV appealed, arguing the Noble court lacked authority to grant privileges with respect to the LaGrange court-ordered suspension and that that challenge was not waived.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State/BMV waived challenge to Noble court granting specialized driving privileges for the LaGrange conviction-based suspension | Staton: BMV/State waived challenge by failing to object at hearing and by the prosecutor stating no objection | State/BMV: Challenge goes to jurisdiction/authority over that suspension and may be raised at any time | Held: Waiver — challenge to venue/authority over that specific suspension was not timely raised and therefore waived |
| Whether Noble Superior Court had authority to grant specialized privileges for a suspension allegedly imposed by LaGrange court | Staton: The 99-year suspension was administratively imposed by the BMV, so Noble court had authority under Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4 | State/BMV: The suspension was court-ordered by LaGrange Superior Court; Noble court lacked authority to grant privileges for a court-ordered suspension | Held: Court did not reach merits; because State/BMV failed to timely challenge, issue waived and Noble order stands |
| Proper venue for petitions under Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4 when suspension is court-ordered vs administrative | Staton: Petition was properly filed in county of residence for administrative suspensions; Noble court appropriately considered all suspensions at hearing | State/BMV: If suspension is court-ordered, petition must be filed in county where order was entered (LaGrange) | Held: For administrative suspensions, filing in resident county is proper; but State/BMV’s argument that LaGrange suspension required filing there was waived by their inaction |
| Standard of review on appeal from denial of motion to correct error | State/BMV: Trial court erred in denying motion to correct error and interpretation of suspension source | Staton: Trial court’s determination should be upheld, waiver applies | Held: Review for abuse of discretion; because issue was waived, judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Utica School Pres., Inc. v. Utica Twp., 7 N.E.3d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (abuse of discretion standard when reviewing denial of motion to correct error)
- Foor v. Town of Hebron, 742 N.E.2d 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction from case-specific jurisdiction)
- Georgetown Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Keele, 743 N.E.2d 301 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (party waives jurisdiction over a specific case if not raised timely)
- In re Adoption of J.T.D., 21 N.E.3d 824 (Ind. 2014) (venue rules prescribe location among courts with jurisdiction)