State ex rel. Van Natta v. Marlett, 777S538
| Decision Date | 28 July 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 777S538,777S538 |
| Citation | 266 Ind. 571,365 N.E.2d 763 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana ex rel. Ralph W. VAN NATTA, Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, Appellants, v. Charles V. MARLETT, Appellee. |
This cause comes to us on a petition to transfer by the State of Indiana ex rel. Ralph W. Van Natta, Commissioner of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, appellants and plaintiffs below. The decision below was in the Third District of the Court of Appeals in which Staton, P. J., and Hoffman, J. concurred, and Garrard, J., concurred in part and dissented in part with opinion. State ex rel. Van Natta v. Marlett (1976), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 198. There, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in granting restricted driving privileges to appellee, Charles Marlett. The trial court found that under Ind.Code § 9-4-13-1 through 18 (Burns 1971), Commissioner Van Natta had authority to grant a restricted driving license to the appellee. We grant transfer and vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The appropriate sections of the statutes involved read as follows:
9-4-13-3 (47-2336). Definitions. As used in this chapter (9-4-13-1 9-4-13-18), unless otherwise provided:
(a) The term "habitual traffic offender" means any person who, within a ten (10) year period, accumulates convictions of the number and type specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of this subsection. In determining the ten (10) year period, at least one (1) of such offenses must occur on or after the effective date (September 1, 1972) of this chapter.
(A) Reckless homicide;
(B) Voluntary or involuntary manslaughter resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle;
(C) Failure of the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or injury to any person to stop at the scene of the accident and give the required information and assistance.
(A) Driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic or other habit-forming or dangerous, depressant or stimulant drugs;
(B) Operating a motor vehicle while his license to do so has been suspended or revoked;
(C) Operating a motor vehicle without a license to do so;
(D) Reckless driving;
(E) Drag racing or engaging in a speed contest in violation of law;
(F) Any offense punishable as a felony under the motor vehicle laws of Indiana, or any felony in the commission of which a motor vehicle is used;
(G) Failure of the driver involved in an accident resulting in property damage in excess of one hundred dollars ($100) to stop at the scene of the accident and give the required information or to otherwise fail to report the accident in violation of law.
Convictions for offenses enumerated in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be taken and added to the convictions described in this paragraph for the purposes of this paragraph.
(3) Ten (10) or more convictions, singularly or in combination, not arising out of the same incident, of any moving traffic violation of the type required to be reported to the bureau of motor vehicles. Convictions for offenses enumerated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, shall be taken and added to the convictions described in this paragraph for the purposes of this paragraph.
9-4-13-10 (47-2243). Hearings Findings Order Probation Costs. At the time and place designated in the order, the court shall hold a hearing upon the show cause order. If the court finds that the defendant is not the person named in the abstracts, or that he is not an habitual traffic offender as defined in section 3(a) (9-4-13-3(a)), the proceeding shall be dismissed. If the court finds that the defendant is the same person named in the abstracts and that the defendant is an habitual traffic offender as defined in section 3(a), the court shall so find and adjudge the defendant an habitual traffic offender, and shall by appropriate order direct the person so adjudged to surrender to the court his license to operate a motor vehicle, and by further order direct the person so adjudged not to operate a motor vehicle on the streets and highways of this state for a period of ten (10) years, unless in a case of a certification because of violations described in section 3(a)(3) hereof, defendant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence, and the court specially finds that the defendant operates a motor vehicle for commercial or business purposes; that his mileage for such purpose is substantially in excess of the mileage of an average driver; and that such excessive mileage may have been a factor contributing to such certification. Upon such a finding, a court may place the defendant on probation for a period of not less than one (1) year nor more than three (3) years, or may order that the defendant's driving privileges be restricted to business or commercial uses, including driving to and from his place of employment, for any specific period not exceeding ten (10) years. If the finding of the court is adverse to the defendant upon the hearing of the show cause order, costs shall be assessed against him. Upon a finding adverse to the defendant, the clerk of the court wherein the hearing is held, shall file with the bureau a copy of the court's order together with the defendant's license if the court has ordered its suspension. If the proceeding is dismissed, no costs shall be assessed against the defendant, and the clerk of the court wherein the hearing is held, shall file with the bureau a copy of the court's order dismissing the proceeding, which order shall state the ground, or grounds, upon which the dismissal was based.
The facts giving rise to this action are as follows. On November 19, 1974, Charles V. Marlett was adjudged by the Lake Circuit Court to be a habitual traffic offender, and the court restricted his driving to business and commercial purposes for a period of one year. This adjudication was based on a driving record which included the following convictions: (1) on May 15, 1965, a conviction for speeding; (2) on February 19, 1966, a conviction for reckless driving; (3) on April 11, 1966, a conviction for reckless driving and a conviction and suspension for driving while under the influence; (4) on June 8, 1970, a conviction and suspension for driving while under the influence; (5) on October 26, 1974, a conviction and suspension for driving while under the influence and a conviction for an automatic signal violation; (7) on March 10, 1973, a conviction for reckless driving; (8) on June 14, 1973, a conviction and suspension for driving while under the influence and a conviction for speeding, and; (9) on May 5, 1974, a conviction and suspension for driving while under the influence and a conviction and suspension for driving while suspended.
It is apparent that Marlett had eight convictions described in section 3(a)(2) and three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindley v. State
...logical meaning of the language. A statute which is specific and unambiguous must be held to its plain meaning. State ex rel. VanNatta v. Marlett, (1977) Ind., 365 N.E.2d 763. The juvenile courts of this State have "original exclusive jurisdiction, except after jurisdiction of the child is ......
-
Palmowski v. Town of New Chicago
...the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, where that meaning is unambiguously expressed. State ex rel. VanNatta v. Marlett (1977), 266 Ind. 571, 365 N.E.2d 763, 766. When an ambiguity or vagueness exists in a statute, however, it is the responsibility of this Court to invoke ......
-
Gibson v. Hernandez, 71A03-0109-CV-301.
...her to transport her children to and from school and doctor's appointments in emergencies.4 See, e.g., State ex rel. Van Natta v. Marlett, 266 Ind. 571, 578, 365 N.E.2d 763, 766 (1977) (holding that the trial court had no statutory authority to grant defendant a restricted driving For the f......
-
Clark v. Commissioner, Bureau of Motor Vehicles
...or business purposes and focused upon whether such mileage is and would be above average. Clark cites State ex rel. VanNatta v. Marlett (1977) 266 Ind. 571, 575, 365 N.E.2d 763, 765, for the proposition that it is only a habitual traffic offender's past mileage that is relevant. In support ......