Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 1 of 9

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Gabriel J. Quearry

Quearry Law, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Kyle Hunter

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Brent Orange,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Indiana Bureau of Motor 

Vehicles,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 31, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

29A02-1707-MI-1549

Appeal from the Hamilton 

Superior Court No. 6

The Honorable Gail Bardach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

29D06-1706-MI-4637

May, Judge.

[1] Brent Orange appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for specialized 

driving privileges. He argues he is statutorily entitled to a hearing and the trial 

court erred when it did not hold a hearing prior to its denial of his petition. He 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 2 of 9

also contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition on 

its merits. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 18, 2017, Orange filed a petition for specialized driving privileges in 

Hamilton County. He requested the court grant him specialized driving 

privileges so he could drive back and forth from his employment, his probation 

meetings, and his court-ordered Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He also 

asked the trial court to issue an order that “waives any and all fees or penalties 

that Orange would otherwise be required to pay in order to obtain specialized 

driving privileges.” (App. Vol. II at 7.) 

[3] On May 25, a Deputy Hamilton County Prosecutor filed an appearance on 

behalf of the State. On May 31, 2017, Orange submitted a proposed order to 

set a hearing on the matter. On June 6, 2017, the trial court, using a revised 

copy of Orange’s submitted proposed order, denied Orange’s petition and 

struck out all language in the order regarding the scheduling of a hearing.

Discussion and Decision

Hearing on Orange’s Petition for Specialized Driving Privileges

[4] Orange argues the trial court erred when it did not grant his request for a 

hearing on his petition for specialized driving privileges pursuant to Indiana 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 3 of 9

Code section 9-30-16-3.

1

 He “concedes that I.C. § 9-30-16-1 et seq. does not say 

that a trial court must hold a hearing on a petition for specialized driving 

privileges but neither does the statute contain an express provision permitting a 

trial court to summarily deny such a petition.” (Br. of Appellant at 8.) 

Therefore, he claims, the trial court should have granted his motion for a 

hearing.

[5] Our standard of review for issues that require us to interpret a statute is wellsettled:

A question of statutory interpretation is a matter of law. In such 

interpretation, the express language of the statute and the rules of 

statutory interpretation apply. We will examine the statute as a 

whole, and avoid excessive reliance on a strict literal meaning or 

the selective reading of words. Where the language of the statute 

is clear and unambiguous, there is nothing to construe.

 

1 Orange has had his driving privileges suspended both by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and by court order. 

Orange’s Verified Petition for Specialized Driving Privileges indicates his “petition to stay the suspension of 

his driving privileges and grant him a specialized driving privilege is verified in compliance with Ind. Code § 

9-30-16-4.” (App. Vol. II at 6.) Indiana Code section 9-30-16-4(a) allows an “individual whose driving 

privileges have been suspended by the bureau by an administrative action and not by a court order” to 

petition the court for specialized driving privileges. Indiana Code section 9-30-16-4(d)(1) requires that a 

verified petition for specialized driving privileges be filed “in the county in which the individual resides.” 

Ind. Code § 9-30-16-4(d)(1). Orange filed his petition for specialized driving privileges in Hamilton County, 

but on his petition listed his address as Marion County. Therefore, his petition was not properly filed.

“An individual who seeks specialized driving privileges must file a petition for specialized driving privileges 

in each court that has ordered or imposed a suspension of the individual’s driving privileges.” Ind. Code § 9-

30-16-3(a). In his petition for specialized driving privileges before the Hamilton Superior Court, Orange 

indicates his “driving privileges were suspended by the Hamilton Superior Court 6 on January 31, 2017 for a 

period of 365 days.” (App. Vol. II at 6.) Thus, it would seem he meant to file his petition pursuant to 

Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3. As we previously have overlooked such an error and decided a case on the 

merits, see Jones v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1205, 1206 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we will also do so here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 4 of 9

However, where the language is susceptible to more than one 

reasonable interpretation, the statute must be construed to give 

effect to the legislature’s intent. The legislature is presumed to 

have intended the language used in the statute to be applied 

logically and not to bring about an absurd or unjust result. Thus, 

we must keep in mind the objective and purpose of the law as 

well as the effect and repercussions of such a construction.

Nash v. State, 881 N.E.2d 1060, 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. “When 

interpreting a statute, this Court must ascertain the legislative intent by looking 

at the whole of the act. We must examine the law existing before, the changes 

made and the apparent intent for making the changes.” Van Orman v. State, 416 

N.E.2d 1301, 1305 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). Further, “it is just as important to 

recognize what a statute does not say as it is to recognize what it does say.” 

Rush v. Elkhart Cty. Plan Comm’n, 698 N.E.2d 1211, 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), 

trans. denied. We may not “read into a statute that which is not the expressed 

intent of the legislature.” Id. Finally, we “will not add something to a statute 

that the legislature has purposely omitted.” Id. 

[6] Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3(b) states, in relevant part:

(b) An individual who seeks specialized driving privileges must 

file a petition for specialized driving privileges in each court that 

has ordered or imposed a suspension of the individual’s driving 

privileges. Each petition must:

(1) be verified by the petitioner;

(2) state the petitioner’s age, date of birth, and address;
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 5 of 9

(3) state the grounds for relief and the relief sought;

(4) be filed in a circuit or superior court; and

(5) be served on the bureau and the prosecuting attorney.

A prosecuting attorney shall appear on behalf of the bureau to 

respond to a petition filed under this subsection.

Indiana Code chapter 9-30-16 was enacted in 2014 and became effective 

January 1, 2015. See Indiana Legislative Public Law 217-2014, Section 154 

(adding Indiana Code chapter 9-30-16). The new law changed significant 

statutory language, as well as revised the word “restricted” in the earlier statutes 

to “specialized.” Compare Indiana Code chapter 9-24-15, entitled “Issuance of 

Restricted Driver’s License Because of Hardship” with Indiana Code section 9-

30-16-3, entitled “Grant of specialized driving privileges[.]”

[7] Prior to 2015, a person whose driving privileges had been suspended could “file 

a verified petition for a restricted driving permit for the sole purpose of driving 

to and from work and in the course of employment during the period of the 

driving license suspension” if “because of the nature of the individual’s 

employment the suspension would work an undue hardship and burden upon 

the individual’s family or dependents.” Ind. Code § 9-24-15-2 (1991) (repealed 

2015). See also Gibson v. Hernandez, 764 N.E.2d 253, 256-7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) 

(holding restricted driving privileges may not be granted “for the purpose of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 6 of 9

transporting [] children to and from school and doctor’s appointments in 

emergencies”), trans. denied.

[8] Following the filing of a petition for restricted driving privileges, Indiana Code 

section 9-24-15-4 (1991) (repealed 2015) directed: “(b) The clerk of court shall 

docket the verified petition in the name of the petitioner against the prosecuting 

attorney of the county[;] (c) The prosecuting attorney shall appear in person or by 

deputy and be heard by the court on the petition.” (emphasis added). Thus, 

according to the plain language of the statute, the trial court was required to 

hold a hearing on petitions for restricted driving privileges prior to the repeal of 

the relevant statutes in 2015.

[9] That language did not survive the statute’s repeal.2 The corresponding 

language in the current statute requires the prosecuting attorney to “appear on 

behalf of the bureau to respond to a petition,” Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3(b), but 

does not include language the appearance must be made in person as was 

required by Indiana Code section 9-24-15-4 (1991) (repealed 2015). Therefore, 

we conclude the legislature intended to change the language of the statute to 

remove the requirement that the trial court hold a hearing regarding a petition 

to grant specialized driving privileges after the suspension of a petitioner’s 

 

2 In 2015, the legislature enacted three statutes to govern the grant of specialized driving privileges: Indiana 

Code section 9-30-16-3 covers those whose driving privileges were suspended pursuant to a court order; 

Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3.5 covers those whose driving privileges were suspended under statutoryspecific circumstances who only want to drive to and from work; and Indiana Code section 9-30-16-4 covers 

those whose driving privileges were suspended by an administrative agency. None of these sections includes

a requirement that a trial court hold a hearing on a petition.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 7 of 9

driver’s license. See Ind. Dept. of State Rev., Sales Tax Div. v. Cable Brazil, Inc., 177 

Ind. App. 450, 458-9, 380 N.E.2d 555, 559-60 (1978) (“presumption is raised 

that the Legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears an 

amendment was made only to express more clearly the original intention of the 

Legislature”), reh’g denied.

[10] We note that our holding addresses only whether a trial court is required to 

hold a hearing pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3. While a trial court 

is not required to hold a hearing under the statute, it may still err if it fails to 

grant a petitioner’s request for a hearing when the petition raises claims of possible 

merit. See, e.g., Osmanov v. State, 40 N.E.3d 904, 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial 

court may err if it does not grant a request for a hearing when petition for postconviction relief raised claims of possible merit). However, as we note infra., 

Orange’s petition did not raise claims of possible merit, and thus the trial court 

properly denied his request for a hearing.

Denial of Orange’s Petition for Specialized Driving Privileges

[11] “[T]he decision to grant or deny a petition for specialized driving privileges is 

reviewable only for an abuse of discretion.” Jones v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1205, 1207 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2016). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision of the 

trial court is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 

before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Id. In our review, 

we neither reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. The 

trial court has “almost unfettered discretion” when deciding whether to grant a 

petition for specialized driving privileges. Id. at 1207 n.3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 8 of 9

[12] Orange argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition 

for specialized driving privileges 

because nothing in the trial court’s order provides a legal or 

factual basis for denying Orange’s petition: nothing in the order 

states that Ind. Trial Rule 12(C) was the legal basis for denying 

Orange’s petition, and the Hamilton County Prosecutor, who 

“appear[ed] on behalf of the [BMV] to respond to” Orange’s 

petition filed under I.C. § 9-30-16-3(b), did not file response 

objecting to Orange’s petition nor moved for judgment on the

pleadings to “attack the legal sufficiency” of Orange’s petition.

(Br. of Appellant at 9-10.) However, the case he cites to support this premise, 

Key v. State, 48 N.E.3d 333 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), involves interpretation of the 

expungement statute, which is not relevant to this case. Additionally, Orange 

cites no authority to support his arguments that the trial court was required to 

provide a legal or factual basis for its ruling, and that the Hamilton County 

Prosecutor was required to file a reply to his petition attacking its legal 

sufficiency. Thus, he has waived his argument for failure to make a cogent 

argument. See Srivastava v. Indianapolis Hebrew Congregation, Inc., 779 N.E.2d 52, 

54 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires the 

argument to be supported by cogent argument, as well as citations to statutes 

and cases relied upon. Failure to include cogent argument with support 

therefor results in waiver of the argument.), trans. denied.

[13] Waiver notwithstanding, there can be no question that the trial court properly 

exercised its discretion when it denied Orange’s petition for specialized driving 

privileges. Orange’s driving record, which includes information only for the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 29A02-1707-MI-1549 | January 31, 2018 Page 9 of 9

past ten years, indicates Orange has accumulated twenty-seven different driving 

suspensions and his reinstatement eligibility date is “Indefinite.” (App. Vol. II 

at 10.) The suspensions stem from Orange’s failure to pay fines, failure to file 

insurance information, operation of a vehicle while intoxicated, failure to 

appear for driver safety program, and chemical test failure. He has been 

adjudicated an habitual traffic violator multiple times. Based thereon, we 

conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his petition 

for specialized driving privileges. See Jones, 62 N.E.3d at 1208 (affirming denial 

of Jones’ petition for specialized driving privileges based on his status as an 

habitual traffic violator with over twenty traffic-related convictions in a ten-year 

period).

Conclusion

[14] As an issue of first impression, we hold Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3 does 

not require the trial court to hold a hearing prior to making a decision on a 

petition for specialized driving privileges. Additionally, the trial court did not 

err when it did not hold a hearing because Orange’s petition did not assert any 

claims of merit. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

denied Orange’s petition for specialized driving privileges. Accordingly, we 

affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.