Court Opinion

ID: 9739662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:19:11.268058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.391248
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring and is joined by RUCKER, Judge. |
I agree that Cruite v. State (1994) Ind., 641 N.E.2d 1264, did not directly decide the issue before us. Notwithstanding contrary implications which may be drawn from Cruite, I find Bishop v. State (1994) Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 1278, on point and clearly applicable.
The reversal here is also warranted by a separate and distinct failure of the notice to comply with I.C. 9-30-10-5. The statute requires the notice be sent to "the person's last known address". The record indicates that the July 20 mailing was sent to two of five addresses listed for Loe. It is not apparent from the record that either of those two addresses were Loe's last known address. For this reason alone, reversal is appropriate.
I concur.
RUCKER, J. joins in this opinion.