15 N.E.3d 589
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jenni Hill had three qualifying convictions within ten years (Jan. 3, 2005; Feb. 28, 2008; Mar. 11, 2008) that led the BMV to first declare her a habitual traffic violator (HTV) and impose a 10-year suspension starting April 25, 2008.
- After the first HTV determination, Hill was convicted twice more for operating while intoxicated (Mar. 13, 2008; Mar. 18, 2009).
- The BMV used the two post-determination convictions together with the earlier convictions to issue a second HTV determination and a subsequent suspension effective August 1, 2013 through April 26, 2019.
- Hill petitioned for judicial review, arguing a conviction used to support the first HTV determination cannot be reused to support a later HTV determination.
- The trial court denied Hill’s petition; she appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IC § 9-30-10-4(b) bars reuse of a conviction that supported an initial HTV determination to support a subsequent HTV determination | Hill: a single qualifying conviction may not be reused; second HTV must be supported by three new convictions | State: convictions may be reused so long as predicates arise from distinct, separate conduct and not the same incident | Court: statute only bars using multiple judgments from the same incident; it does not prohibit a conviction from serving as a predicate for successive HTV determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. McNeil, 931 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for judicial review of BMV decisions)
- Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 2001) (give statutory words their plain and ordinary meaning)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000) (agency interpretation of statute afforded great weight)
- Orndorff v. Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 982 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (purpose of HTV suspension: protect public by removing unfit drivers)
- N.D.F. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 2002) (courts should not read into statute what legislature omitted)