Savage v. State, 49S02-9508-CR-980
| Decision Date | 03 October 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 49S02-9508-CR-980,49S02-9508-CR-980 |
| Citation | 655 N.E.2d 1223 |
| Parties | Delbert SAVAGE, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
As the result of an automobile collision in which a fatality occurred and another individual suffered serious injuries, Delbert Savage was convicted of reckless homicide, a Class C felony, and criminal recklessness, a Class D felony. Savage received a six-year sentence, two years of which was to be suspended, subject to specified conditions of probation. One condition of probation was that Savage make restitution. To that end, pursuant to I.C. 35-38-2-2.3(a)(5), 1 the trial court held a restitution hearing to determine what amount Savage was required to pay, considering factors such as Savage's education level (high school), his income level (approximately $1,000.00 monthly) and his monthly expenses (approximately $800.00 to $1000.00 monthly) at the time of his incarceration. Additionally, the trial court considered evidence which demonstrated that Medicaid had paid expenses of $164,998.59 on behalf of the individual injured in the collision. The trial court ordered Savage to pay $164,998.59 restitution to the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, on behalf of Medicaid.
Savage sought review of both his convictions and the restitution order before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals rejected Savage's argument that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his convictions, and affirmed the convictions, Savage v. Indiana (1995), Ind.App., 650 N.E.2d 1156, but concluded that because the restitution order required Savage to pay 100% of his discretionary income for a period longer than Savage is likely to live, the restitution order was manifestly unreasonable and contrary to law, and reversed. We grant transfer, and pursuant to Appellate Rule 11(B)(3), affirm the Court of Appeals' determination that sufficient evidence was presented to support the convictions.
We expressly adopt and incorporate by reference Judge Sullivan's dissenting opinion. We affirm the trial court's decision to impose restitution of $164,998.59; however, we remand to permit the trial court to issue an order identifying an appropriate restitution payment plan, as contemplated by the statute and discussed in Judge Sullivan's dissent.
We note that, although Savage did not raise the issue of the restitution order in his petition to transfer, we have authority to review this issue because Savage raised the issue of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miles
...a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct, and is considered reckless...."), vacated in part on other grounds, 655 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind.1995); State v. Morrison, 174 S.W.3d 646 (Mo.Ct.App.2005) (driver acted in criminally reckless manner "by failing to take any evasive action......
-
Williams v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.
...for the jury. See Savage v. State, 650 N.E.2d 1156, 1161 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), aff'd in part, adopted in part, vacated in part, 655 N.E.2d 1223 (Ind. 1995). Amtrak's futility argument would require the Court to address the merits of Plaintiff's claim by examining the opinion of Mr. Fulk and......
-
Greer v. State
...will decide an issue not raised in the petition to transfer contrary to the result reached by the Court of Appeals. See Savage v. State, 655 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (1995); Kimberlin v. DeLong, 637 N.E.2d 121, 123 (1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 829, 116 S.Ct. 98, 133 L.Ed.2d 53 (1995). See also L......
-
Beverly v. State
...information, and concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution), adopted by Savage v. State, 655 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind.1995). To the extent that Beverly argues there was insufficient evidence of the amount, we observe that the PSI indicated that the a......