Mark Weakly v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1611-CR-2710
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 24, 2017Background
- In 2005 Weakly was charged with Class A misdemeanor battery for battering his daughter; he pled guilty in 2006 and completed probation the same year.
- In 2016 Weakly petitioned the trial court under Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7 seeking restoration of his firearm rights, asserting the conviction functionally amounted to a domestic battery and that expungement alone would not remove a federal firearms prohibition.
- The trial court denied the petition, finding the conviction was for battery (not domestic battery) and therefore § 35-47-4-7 did not apply.
- Weakly moved to reconsider, arguing federal authorities treat the underlying facts as a domestic battery and restoration under § 35-47-4-7 was necessary to lift federal restrictions; the State argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the conviction was not for a statutory crime of domestic violence.
- After a hearing the trial court again denied the motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute’s definition of “crime of domestic violence” did not include a conviction of battery against a child and thus § 35-47-4-7 was inapplicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ind. Code § 35-47-4-7 applies to restore firearm rights after Weakly’s battery conviction | Weakly: conviction was effectively domestic (battery against daughter); federal prohibitor persists absent restoration under § 35-47-4-7 | State: conviction was for battery, not a statutory crime of domestic violence; court lacks authority to restore rights under § 35-47-4-7 | Held: § 35-47-4-7 does not apply because Weakly was not convicted of a “crime of domestic violence” as statutorily defined; petition denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. State, 716 N.E.2d 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (clear statutes must be applied as written)
- Ind. Dep’t of Nat. Res. v. Peabody Coal Co., 654 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Anderson, 661 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (unambiguous statutes not subject to judicial construction)
- Indiana State Bd. of Health v. Journal-Gazette Co., 608 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (give a clear statute its apparent meaning)