State v. VANKIRK
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1790
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- State appeals after trial court acquitted Vankirk of operating with lifelong driving-privilege forfeiture; issue is whether modification to Class A misdemeanor affected the forfeiture.
- In 2005, Vankirk pleaded guilty to OMVW with habitual traffic violator designation (Class D felony); plea implied possible misdemeanor sentencing upon probation.
- Plea agreement secured that if probation completed, State would not object to converting conviction to an alternative Class A misdemeanor.
- 2006 judgment modified to Class A misdemeanor, but the court did not address prior forfeiture of driving privileges.
- 2009 stop led officer to confirm BMV records showing driving privileges forfeited for life; State charged Class C felony for operating with forfeited privileges.
- Trial court held that life forfeiture applies only to Class D felony; conversion to Class A misdemeanor permits only suspension, not lifetime forfeiture; acquitted Vankirk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether modification from Class D felony to Class A misdemeanor removes lifetime forfeiture | Vankirk's lifetime forfeiture remains despite misdemeanor conversion | Modification to Class A misdemeanor erases lifetime forfeiture and allows only suspension | Modification removes lifetime forfeiture; suspension may be possible |
Key Cases Cited
- Leslie v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (distinguishes suspension vs. forfeiture consequences)
- Brunner v. State, 947 N.E.2d 411 (Ind.2011) (interprets timing of entry of Class A misdemeanor judgment under 35-50-2-7)
- Pendleton v. Aguilar, 827 N.E.2d 614 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (statutory interpretation framework; harmonization of conflicting provisions)
- Klotz v. Hoyt, 900 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.2009) (when two statutes cover same subject, more specific prevails)
- Hecht v. State, 853 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (parallels on harmonizing statutes addressing driving-privilege effects)
- State v. Hunter, 898 N.E.2d 455 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (reserved-question-of-law framework following acquittal)