Attorney for Appellant
J.J. Paul, III
Indianapolis, IN
Attorneys for Appellee
Steve Carter
Attorney General of Indiana
Scott A. Kreider
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN
IN THE
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
SALVATORE DESANTIS,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
)
) Supreme Court No.
) 30S01-0210-CR-532
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEAL FROM THE HANCOCK SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Richard D. Culver, Judge
Cause No. 30D02-9911-DF-1263
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
October 29, 2002
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, No. 49S02-
0203-CR-202 (Ind. October 29, 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. Desantis 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, Desantis 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.