State v. Bilbrey
| Decision Date | 06 March 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 18A04-0010-CR-433.,18A04-0010-CR-433. |
| Citation | 743 N.E.2d 796 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Johnny BILBREY, Appellee-Defendant. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Karen M. Freeman-Wilson, Attorney General of Indiana, Grant H. Carlton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Kevin P. McGoff, Alicia A. Gooden, Kiefer & McGoff, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
Appellant-Plaintiff, State of Indiana (State), appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee Defendant's, Johnny Bilbrey (Bilbrey), motion to dismiss the charges of operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension, a Class C felony, Ind.Code § 9-30-10-17, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2.
We reverse.
The State raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: whether the trial court properly dismissed the informations against Bilbrey.
On November 4, 1999, Michael Atkins (Atkins) heard a loud noise outside of his home. Atkins went outside and saw that a truck had run into a tree in his backyard. Atkins also saw Bilbrey standing near his next-door-neighbor's house.
On December 15, 1999, Bilbrey was charged with operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension, a Class C felony, Ind. Code § 9-30-10-17, operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind.Code § 9-30-5-2, and disorderly conduct, a Class B misdemeanor, Ind.Code § 35-45-1-3(2). On January 27, 2000, Bilbrey was additionally charged with being an habitual offender, Ind.Code 35-50-2-8(b).
On June 16, 2000, Bilbrey filed a motion to dismiss the charges of operating a vehicle after lifetime suspension and operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Bilbrey argued that he was not operating a vehicle on the day of the alleged offenses. He further argued that it was his sister, Teresa, that was operating the vehicle which was the subject of the informations filed against him. On July 13, 2000, the trial court held a hearing on Bilbrey's motion to dismiss. The trial court held:
I, be the position of the Court, I really do not see any factual issue. There just is not before the Court, other than simply the allegation that he may have, uh, operated the motor vehicle. There doesn't seem to be any evidence before the Court to back that up. The only evidence before the Court is that he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time. Consequently, the Motion to Dismiss as it pertains to the charges involving operating, uh, these two charges are now dismissed.
(R. 105).
On August 4, 2000, the State filed a motion to correct error, claiming that the trial court erred in dismissing the charges against Bilbrey. The State argued that the question of whether Bilbrey operated a vehicle was a matter for the trier of fact, and not appropriate for a motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2000, the trial court denied the State's motion to correct error. The State now appeals.
The State argues that the trial court improperly granted Bilbrey's motion to dismiss the informations filed against him.
Ind.Code § 35-34-1-4(a) states as follows:
It is the State's contention that whether Bilbrey operated a motor vehicle is a factual issue, and not an issue that can be decided as a matter of law. Generally, when a defendant files a motion to dismiss an information, the facts alleged in the information are to be taken as true. State v. D.M.Z., 674 N.E.2d 585, 587 (Ind.Ct. App.1996). Furthermore, in Taylor v. State, 677 N.E.2d 56, 67 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), this court held that:
The purpose of an information is to guarantee certain protections to the criminally accused. First, the charging document must set forth the elements of the offense charged in order to apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the accusation against him. Second, the offense charged must be described with sufficient particularity to permit a defense of double jeopardy in the event of a subsequent prosecution.
Id. (citations omitted). Finally, in State v. Houser, 622 N.E.2d 987, 988 (Ind.Ct.App. 1993), this court held that it is improper for a trial court to grant a defendant's motion to dismiss an information when it is based on the sufficiency of the evidence. Consequently, the State claims that the trial court's dismissal of the charges against Bilbrey was based on insufficient evidence, and, thus, the dismissal was improper.
However, Bilbrey insists that the trial court properly dismissed the charging informations against him as a matter of law. Bilbrey maintains that the State's mere assertion that he was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident was not sufficient to preclude dismissal of the informations. In support of his argument, Bilbrey cites to D.M.Z. In D.M.Z., the State filed an information which alleged that on three separate occasions, D.M.Z. had engaged in sexual conduct with C.P. in violation of the child seduction statute. D.M.Z., 674 N.E.2d at 587. D.M.Z. moved to dismiss the charges on several grounds: (1) D.M.Z. was not C.P.'s custodian, (2) the Shelter was not a foster care facility, and (3) the child seduction statute was unconstitutionally vague. Id. Following a hearing, the trial court granted D.M.Z.'s motion to dismiss. Id. The trial court concluded that as a matter of law, D.M.Z. was not C.P.'s custodian and that the Shelter was not a foster...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...that the question of whether a snowmobile is a "motor vehicle" is one of fact that the factfinder must resolve. See State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796, 798-99 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). In this case, the information charging Brown with this offense reads as [O]n or about February 7, 2004 in Jay Count......
-
DeLagrange v. State
...Our standard of review for a motion to dismiss considers all the facts alleged in the information to be true, State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2001): “[q]uestions of fact to be decided at trial ... are not property raised by a motion to dismiss.” State v. Isaacs, 794 N.E.2d......
-
State v. Gill
...a defendant files a motion to dismiss an information, the facts alleged in the information are to be taken as true. State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). Questions of fact to be decided at trial or facts constituting a defense are not properly raised by a motion to dismis......
-
State v. Gill
...a defendant files a motion to dismiss an information, the facts alleged in the information are to be taken as true. State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). Questions of fact to be decided at trial or facts constituting a defense are not properly raised by a motion to dis......