Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Clay M. Patton

Osan & Patton, LLP

Valparaiso, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Danny R. Slawnikowski,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

February 16, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

64A05-1509-CR-1417

Appeal from the Porter Superior

Court

The Honorable David L. 

Chidester, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

64D04-1409-F6-8567

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 3

Statement of the Case

[1] Danny R. Slawnikowski appeals his sentence following his conviction for 

domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. Slawnikowski raises a single issue 

for our review, namely, whether his sentence of one year was inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. But we need 

only address the following dispositive issue: whether this appeal is moot. We 

dismiss.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On the morning of September 27, 2014, Slawnikowski woke up his wife, 

Elizabeth, after realizing he would be late to work and she would be late in 

picking up her son. Soon after Elizabeth arose from bed, Slawnikowski and 

Elizabeth got into a verbal and physical altercation with one another. 

Immediately after the altercation, Slawnikowski left the residence and Elizabeth

called the police to report the incident. Shortly thereafter, officers of the 

Chesterton Police Department arrived and arrested Slawnikowski. 

[3] The State charged Slawnikowski with strangulation, as a Level 6 Felony, and 

domestic battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. The jury found Slawnikowski not 

guilty of strangulation but guilty of domestic battery. Following a sentencing 

hearing, the trial court sentenced Slawnikowski to 365 days in the Porter 

County Jail. Sent. Tr. at 9. Slawnikowski completed his sentence in late July 

of 2015.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 64A05-1509-CR-1417| February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 3

Discussion and Decision

[4] On appeal, Slawnikowski argues that his one year sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and his character. But we need only address 

whether this appeal is moot since he has already completed his sentence.

[5] The long-standing rule in Indiana is that a “case is deemed moot and will be 

dismissed when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the 

court.” In re Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). Once a defendant’s 

“sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered 

moot.” Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004). Indiana’s courts have 

long recognized that a case that is otherwise moot may nevertheless be decided 

on its merits when the case involves a question of “great public interest.” In re 

Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d at 37. And we have defined cases of “great public 

interest” as those that “raise important policy concerns and present issues that 

are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009).

[6] Here, Slawnikowski has already served his 365-day sentence for his domestic 

battery conviction. Thus, this court cannot provide Slawnikowski with any 

effective relief on appeal. Lee, 816 N.E.2d at 40 n.2. And this case does not fall 

under the “great public interest” exception to the mootness doctrine. In re 

Lawrence, 579 N.E.2d at 37. Accordingly, we are obliged to dismiss this appeal 

as moot.

[7] Dismissed. 

Riley, J., and May, J., concur.