Title: McDonald v. State
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 22S-CR-00046
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 31, 2022

I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 22S-CR-46 
Carl Eugene McDonald, 
Appellant/Defendant, 
–v– 
State of Indiana, 
Appellee/Plaintiff. 
Argued: January 20, 2022 | Decided: January 31, 2022 
Appeal from the Cass Superior Court 
No. 09D01-1907-F6-250 
The Honorable James Muehlhausen, Judge 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals 
No. 21A-CR-363 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jan 31 2022, 2:54 pm
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-CR-46 | January 31, 2022 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam.  
Carl Eugene McDonald, who has never held a driver’s license, operated 
his vehicle while intoxicated with his three young grandchildren in the 
vehicle. The State charged McDonald with Level 6 felony operating a 
vehicle while intoxicated, endangering a person with a passenger less than 
eighteen years old; three counts Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent; and 
Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle without ever receiving a license. 
The State also alleged McDonald is a habitual vehicle substance offender 
(HVSO). McDonald pleaded guilty to all charges and the HVSO 
enhancement without a plea agreement.  
At the sentencing hearings, the State, McDonald’s counsel, and the trial 
court agreed the HVSO enhancement was nonsuspendible. The court 
entered an order sentencing McDonald to two years on each of the felony 
convictions and 60 days on the misdemeanor conviction, with all 
sentences suspended and served concurrently to each other and 
consecutively to the HVSO sentence. The court sentenced McDonald to 
four and one-half years on the HVSO enhancement. The abstract of 
judgment differs from the sentencing order by imposing a two-year 
sentence for the misdemeanor conviction.  
On appeal, McDonald argues his multiple convictions constitute double 
jeopardy and that the trial court erred in sentencing. The Court of Appeals 
dismissed in part, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with 
instructions. McDonald v. State, 173 N.E.3d 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). We 
grant transfer and summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion, see Ind. 
Appellate Rule 58(A)(2), with one exception.   
We summarily affirm the “Double Jeopardy” section of the Court of 
Appeals opinion, agreeing “[i]t is well-established that a defendant who 
has pleaded guilty may not challenge the validity of his conviction on 
direct appeal.” 173 N.E.3d at 1047 (citing Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394, 
395 (Ind. 1996)). 
We also summarily affirm the “Sentencing” section of the opinion but 
for the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that remand for a new sentencing is 
unnecessary. The Court of Appeals concluded that the abstract of 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 22S-CR-46 | January 31, 2022 
Page 3 of 3 
judgment is incorrect regarding the sentence imposed for operating 
without a license; the trial court incorrectly entered the HVSO 
enhancement as a separate, consecutive sentence rather than as an 
enhancement to a felony conviction, citing I.C. § 9-30-15-5.2(d); and the 
trial court did not understand the HVSO enhancement could be 
suspended, comparing Ind. Code § 9-30-15.5-2 with § 35-50-2-8(i). The 
Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court to issue a corrected abstract 
of judgment and to issue a new sentencing order specifying which felony 
conviction is enhanced by the HVSO finding. But the Court of Appeals 
concluded that although the trial court did not understand the HVSO 
enhancement was suspendible, remand for a new sentencing is 
unnecessary because the Court of Appeals is “confident that the trial court 
would have imposed the same sentence had it realized that it could have 
suspended the HVSO enhancement.” 173 N.E.3d at 1409. We are not so 
sure. Given the multiple irregularities in McDonald’s sentencing, we find 
it appropriate to remand to the trial court for resentencing.   
Rush, C.J., and David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T  
Mark K. Leeman 
William Kelly Leeman 
Logansport, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E  
Theodore E. Rokita 
Attorney General of Indiana  
 
Caroline G. Templeton 
Deputy Attorney General 
Indianapolis, Indiana