Court Opinion

ID: 9717478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:04:16.487376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.400354
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and would refer the reader to my dissenting opinion in Clark v. State (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 759.
I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that “we hold that an enhancement of ten years is all that is allowed by the Indiana Constitution.” The statement in our Constitution upon which the majority depends is, “All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” As in the Clark case, the nature of this offense is operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated on the public highways of Indiana following several such arrests and convictions, one of which had led to appellant’s suspension for life of his license to drive.
As I stated in my dissent in Clark, drunk drivers in Indiana cause more deaths annually than any other group of criminals. Here, as in Clark, we have a defendant who has shown a total lack of respect for the criminal justice system and who contin*1033ued to drive upon the highways after his license had been suspended for life.
The majority observes that little harm came from his conduct. The fact that little harm came from appellant’s conduct should not be accredited to him. It is only by sheer luck and the grace of God that he did not cause the death of some innocent citizen travelling on the highway. I believe Judge Harris’ handling of this case was within the statutes and the Constitution of Indiana.
I would affirm appellant’s conviction in its entirety.
KRAHULIK, J., concurs.