Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 1 of 6

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.

APPELLANT PRO SE

Keith Bullock, Jr.

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kristin Garn

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Keith Bullock, Jr.,

Appellant-Petitioner,

v.

State of Indiana and Indiana 

Bureau of Motor Vehicles,

Appellees-Respondents.

August 10, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1411-MI-833

Appeal from the Marion Circuit

Court

The Honorable Louis F. Rosenberg,

Judge 

The Honorable Mark A. Jones, 

Master Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No. 49C01-1401-

MI-1522

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 2 of 6

[1] In 2003, Appellee-Respondent the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) 

determined Appellant-Petitioner Keith Bullock, Jr., to be a habitual traffic 

violator (“HTV”) and suspended his driver’s license for five years. In 2004, 

Bullock was convicted of operating a vehicle after being designated an HTV,

and his driver’s license was accordingly suspended for life. Also in 2004, due to 

an apparently erroneous court record, a conviction for operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated (“OWI”) within five years of a prior OWI conviction was entered 

on Bullock’s BMV driver record. In 2007, Bullock was convicted of operating a 

vehicle after his license was forfeited for life. In 2014, Bullock petitioned to 

have his driving privileges restored, which petition the trial court denied. 

Bullock contends that (1) the trial court erred in denying his petition to reinstate 

driving privileges, (2) the suspension notice for the erroneous OWI conviction 

showed a five-year suspension while the erroneous abstract of judgment showed 

a lifetime suspension, and (3) he was otherwise prejudiced by the erroneous 

OWI conviction. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At some point in 2003, BMV designated Bullock an HTV by virtue of 

accumulating more than ten qualifying traffic violations in a ten-year period. 

As a result, BMV suspended Bullock’s driver’s license for five years, until 

September 3, 2008. On March 18, 2004, Bullock was found guilty of operating 

after having been designated an HTV, a Class D felony, which resulted in 

Bullock’s license being suspended for life pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 3 of 6

30-10-16. Bullock’s BMV driver record, as of October 23, 2013, reflects that 

Bullock was also convicted of OWI within five years of a prior OWI on March 

18, 2004, in cause number 49F15-0309-FD-167876 (“Cause No. 167876”). In 

February of 2007, Bullock was found guilty of Class C felony operating a 

vehicle after his license was forfeited for life. 

[3] On January 22, 2014, Bullock filed a pro se petition to restore his driving 

privileges, alleging, inter alia, that he had never been convicted of OWI within 

five years of a prior OWI in Cause No. 167876. On July 24, 2014, the trial

court that the abstract of judgment in Cause No. 167876 be amended to reflect 

that Bullock had not been convicted of OWI within five years of a prior OWI. 

On November 10, 2014, the trial court ordered that the erroneous OWI within 

five years of a prior OWI conviction be removed from Bullock’s BMV driver 

record but denied Bullock’s petition for reinstatement of driving privileges. 

Discussion and Decision

I. Whether the Trial Court Erred in Denying Bullock’s 

Petition to Reinstate his Driving Privileges

[4] Bullock contends that the trial court erroneously denied his petition to reinstate 

his driving privileges. Appellees contend that Bullock does not fit criteria for 

reinstatement as a matter of law. 

Generally, Indiana Code section 9-30-10-14 provides means by 

which a person whose driving privileges have been suspended for 

life may petition a trial court in a civil action for rescission of the 

suspension order and reinstatement of the person’s driving 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 4 of 6

privileges, provided that certain conditions have been met. One 

of these conditions is that the person “has never been convicted 

of an offense under section 17 of this chapter.” I.C. § 9-30-10-

14(a)(3). Similarly, Indiana Code section 9-30-10-15 provides 

that, before a trial court may order rescission of a lifetime 

suspension order and reinstate a person’s driving privileges, the 

court must find by clear and convincing evidence several 

conditions, and again one of these conditions is “[t]hat the 

petitioner has never been convicted of an offense under section

17 of this chapter.” I.C. § 9-30-10-15(b)(2). Section 17 of chapter 

9-30-10 defines the crime of operating a motor vehicle while 

privileges are forfeited for life[.] 

Hazelwood v. State, 3 N.E.3d 39, 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 

[5] As Bullock acknowledged in his petition to reinstate driving privileges, he has a 

2007 conviction pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-10-17 for operating a 

vehicle after his license was forfeited for life. Bullock’s undisputed conviction 

pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-10-17 makes him ineligible for 

reinstatement pursuant to sections 14 and 15. Bullock’s argument seems to be 

that his conviction under section 17 “was dismissed from his driving record” 

after serving three years of probation, Appellee’s App. p. 4, but the relevant 

statutes make no exception for such circumstances. Bullock, as he admits, has 

been convicted under section 17, which means that he is ineligible for 

reinstatement of his driving privileges. The trial court did not err in denying 

Bullock’s petition. 

II. Notice-Based Argument

[6] Bullock seems to argue that he had not been given sufficient notice that he was 

subject to lifetime suspension of driving privileges when was convicted of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 5 of 6

operating a vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life in 2007, the conviction 

that now bars his reinstatement. As the State notes, however, Bullock did not 

raise this argument in the trial court and so may not now raise it for this first 

time in this court. “A party who raises an issue on appeal that was not raised in 

the trial court waives that issue.” Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Co. v. Estate of 

Martin, 666 N.E.2d 411, 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. 

III. Erroneous OWI Conviction

[7] Bullock maintains that he was prejudiced by the erroneous OWI conviction that 

appeared on his BMV driver record, arguing that it was used to support the 

imposition of the lifetime suspension that he can cannot now petition to 

overturn. Even if the erroneous OWI conviction was used in this fashion, 

however, Bullock’s argument fails to take into account the fact that his lifetime 

suspension was also based on, and fully supportable by, his 2004 conviction for 

operating a vehicle after being designated an HTV. Bullock’s BMV driver 

record’s suspension information for that conviction lists the effective date of 

Bullock’s associated suspension as “3/18/2004” and the length as 

“Indefinite[.]” Appellee’s App. p. 150 (emphasis in original). As such, the 

entry of an erroneous OWI conviction, and its associated appearance on 

Bullock’s BMV driver record, can only be considered harmless error. “An error 

is deemed harmless if it has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the [party].” 

Boyd v. State, 650 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1411-MI-833 | August 10, 2015 Page 6 of 6

[8] We conclude that the trial court properly denied Bullock’s petition to reinstate 

driving privileges. We further conclude that Bullock waived any notice-based 

argument by failing to raise it in the trial court. Finally, any error that might 

have been caused at any point by Bullock’s erroneous OWI conviction can only 

be considered harmless. 

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

May, J., and Crone, J., concur.