Opinion
23A-CR-2500
04-24-2024
Brandon Michael Thomas, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amanda O. Balckketter Blackketter Law, LLC Shelbyville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Shelby Superior Court Trial Court Cause No. 73D01-2110-F4-18 The Honorable R. Kent Apsley, Judge
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amanda O. Balckketter Blackketter Law, LLC Shelbyville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Riley, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[¶1] Appellant-Defendant, Brandon Michael Thomas (Thomas), appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood causing catastrophic injury, a Level 4 felony, Ind. Code § 9-30-5-5(a)(2).
[¶2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[¶3] Thomas presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed an eight-year suspension of his driver's license.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[¶4] On June 15, 2021, Thomas was driving north on State Road 9 near Jordan Court in Shelby County, Indiana, with his minor children in the vehicle. As he drove around a curve, he struck an eight-year-old boy walking southbound alongside the roadway. The boy was thrown eighty to ninety feet in the air from the point of impact and had to be airlifted by lifeline helicopter to Riley Hospital for Children. As a result of the impact, the victim suffered a gash in the side of his lip which required twelve stitches, a torn aorta, a herniated/perforated bowel that required emergency surgery, a broken left hip, broken left and right femurs which required rods to be placed for at least nine months, and a broken knee. Due to these injuries, the victim was wheelchair bound for at least one year, suffered from head injuries that caused a change in his vision prescription, and had trouble processing information.
[¶5] When law enforcement arrived on the scene, Thomas was advised of the Indiana Implied Consent Law and agreed to a blood draw. After the blood draw, Thomas was issued an infraction for operating without financial responsibility and was released from the hospital. On August 31, 2021, law enforcement received Thomas' blood test results from the accident, which indicated a positive result for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
[¶6] On October 5, 2021, the State filed an Information, charging Thomas with Level 4 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood causing catastrophic injury, Level 4 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing catastrophic injury, Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a passenger less than 18 years old, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood. On October 21, 2022, Thomas agreed to plead guilty to Level 4 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a schedule I or II controlled substance in the blood causing catastrophic injury in exchange for an eight-year sentence, with four years executed and four years suspended, and dismissal of the remaining charges. The plea agreement also called for the imposition of a driver's license suspension, the duration of which was left to the discretion of the trial court.
[¶7] On September 27, 2023, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court had before it Thomas' pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report. Thomas' criminal history reflects that he has been arrested nine times, of which six arrests involved instances of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, in some cases not more than a couple of days apart, and he was convicted twice. In each conviction, he was placed on probation and had his license suspended. Thomas was also charged with felony auto theft, to which he pled guilty, and he was convicted of no operator's license in possession, a Class C infraction. Thomas' PSI report also detailed his history of substance abuse and noted that he began drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at the age of fifteen. In his late teens and early adult years, he used LSD on more than one occasion. In June of 2021, Thomas began using methamphetamine, used methamphetamine approximately two days before the accident in the present case, and again used methamphetamine two days after committing the instant offense.
[¶8] At the hearing, the victim's grandmother testified to the victim's ongoing struggles since the accident. The boy could no longer sit normally, and he was anticipated never to walk normally again. He remained in substantial pain, even after the removal of the medical hardware used to secure his broken bones, and he continued to require surgery to remedy a blocked artery leading from the liver and spleen to the kidneys.
[¶9] At the close of the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of eight years, with four years executed and four years suspended to probation. As a condition of probation, Thomas was ordered to serve two years on home detention. The trial court further ordered Thomas' license to be suspended for eight years, with the suspension to commence on the date of sentencing.
[¶10] Thomas now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[¶11] Not contesting the imposition of his driver's license suspension per se, Thomas challenges the length of the suspension-eight years from the date of sentencing-as an abuse of the trial court's discretion.
[¶12] "There exists no absolute right to obtain and keep a driver's license in Indiana." Schrefler v. State, 660 N.E.2d 585, 587 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (citing Ruge v. Kovach, 467 N.E.2d 673, 677 (Ind. 1984)). Rather, driving privileges are an entitlement that may be withheld, suspended, or revoked by the State for reasons of public safety. Schrefler, 660 N.E.2d at 587-88. Indiana Code section 9-30-16-2(a)(2), regarding suspension of driving privileges for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, provides, in pertinent part, that "[t]he court shall order that the driving privileges of a person are suspended for a period of at least one (1) year for a person convicted of [] (2) [a]n offense under [I.C.] 9-30-5 that includes the element of causing or resulting in serious bodily injury[.]" A license suspension is not a criminal penalty. State v. Reinhart, 112 N.E.3d 705, 713 (Ind. 2018). "[T]he administrative suspension scheme was designed to promote the State's interest in keeping its highways safe from intoxicated drivers" and although "the suspension of driving privileges has some punitive impact on the offender . . . [it] is merely incidental to the overriding remedial purpose of the statute." Moala v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1061, 1066 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012). Therefore, we review the trial court's suspension of Thomas' license for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793, 796-97 (Ind. 2012).
[¶13] The trial court's imposition of the eight-year license suspension corresponded to the imposition of Thomas' eight-year sentence, both ordered to begin at sentencing. Thomas' sentence consists of four years executed at the DOC, followed by four years probation, which includes two years of home detention. Given his sentence, Thomas' license suspension coincides for the most part with his executed sentence and home detention. Thomas now asserts that an eight-year license suspension is "an onerous, long-lasting burden" on his ability to support himself and pay child support for his three minor children. (Appellant's Br. p. 7). We are not persuaded. The PSI reflects that Thomas' last employment was in the summer of 2021 and he was unemployed at the time of sentencing. He has no stable income, and occasionally works side jobs.
[¶14] Based on the trial court's structuring of his license suspension, Thomas will not need a license while at the DOC, resulting in only four remaining years without a license. Framed against the facts of this case, this is not an unreasonable time. The consequences of Thomas' decision to ingest methamphetamine and then operate a car while the substance was still in his blood were devastating to the eight-year-old victim, who has been stripped of his normal childhood and is impaired by health problems that will complicate his life for several years. He is no longer able to sit or to walk normally, requires ongoing surgeries, and continues to be in pain.
[¶15] Moreover, this is not Thomas' first driving offense. Thomas has been charged with driving while suspended six times and was convicted twice. Given that some of these charges were filed mere days apart, it is uncontroverted that Thomas scoffs at traffic laws and the safety they attempt to ensure. His continued disregard for the traffic laws, paired with his substance abuse and criminal behavior, has created a hazard for innocent bystanders, leaving an eight-year-old boy to suffer lifelong consequences. Accordingly, based on the facts before us, we cannot say that it was against the logic of the facts and circumstances before the trial court to impose an eight-year license suspension and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
CONCLUSION
[¶16] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed an eight-year driver's license suspension.
[¶17] Affirmed.
Brown, J. and Foley, J. concur