Salvatore Desantis v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Salvatore Desantis v. State of Indiana

778 N.E.2d 787, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 811, 2002 WL 31424689

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 29, 2002

Docket30S01-0210-CR-532

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 778 N.E.2d 787 (Salvatore Desantis v. State of Indiana) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Salvatore Desantis v. State of Indiana, 778 N.E.2d 787, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 811, 2002 WL 31424689 (Ind. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Salvatore Desantis appeals from a criminal conviction for driving after being suspended under the habitual traffic violator statutes. For more background, see our companion decision, Groce v. State, 778 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 2002), also decided today.

On October 7,1994, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) sent Desantis a letter informing him that he was a habitual traffic violator (“HTV”) and that his license would be suspended effective November 17, 1994. On November 30, 1995, the BMV sent Desantis a letter outlining his right to judicial review of his license suspension. On November 19, 1999, Desantis was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) and operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV. De-santis pled guilty to the OWI on November 20, 2000, and was tried by the court on the HTV charge. On January 5, 2001, the trial court convicted Desantis of operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV, and he was subsequently sentenced to one and one-half years in the Hancock County jail and suspension of his driver’s license for life.

The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See DeSantis v. State, 760 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

As outlined in our companion case, De-santis claims his HTV suspension is void ab initio given the BMV’s failure to provide information of judicial review opportunities in the original suspension notice. Consequently, Desantis requests his subsequent conviction for driving while suspended as an HTV be reversed. Because we hold in the companion case decided today that the underlying HTV suspension is valid and not void ab initio, there are no grounds to reverse the present conviction.

Conclusion

We grant transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SULLIVAN, Justice.

Salvatore Desantis appeals from a criminal conviction for driving after being suspended under the habitual traffic violator statutes. For more background, see our companion decision, Groce v. State, 778 N.E.2d 785 (Ind. 2002), also decided today.

On October 7,1994, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) sent Desantis a letter informing him that he was a habitual traffic violator (“HTV”) and that his license would be suspended effective November 17, 1994. On November 30, 1995, the BMV sent Desantis a letter outlining his right to judicial review of his license suspension. On November 19, 1999, Desantis was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) and operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV. De-santis pled guilty to the OWI on November 20, 2000, and was tried by the court on the HTV charge. On January 5, 2001, the trial court convicted Desantis of operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV, and he was subsequently sentenced to one and one-half years in the Hancock County jail and suspension of his driver’s license for life.

The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See DeSantis v. State, 760 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

As outlined in our companion case, De-santis claims his HTV suspension is void ab initio given the BMV’s failure to provide information of judicial review opportunities in the original suspension notice. Consequently, Desantis requests his subsequent conviction for driving while suspended as an HTV be reversed. Because we hold in the companion case decided today that the underlying HTV suspension is valid and not void ab initio, there are no grounds to reverse the present conviction.

Conclusion

We grant transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 N.E.2d 787, 2002 Ind. LEXIS 811, 2002 WL 31424689, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvatore-desantis-v-state-of-indiana-ind-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack