Jennifer Nelson for the www.indianalawyer.com

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed with the state Thursday that a woman’s Class D felony drunken-driving convictions are considered “crimes of violence” under Indiana law, so there was no error when the trial court imposed a seven-year consecutive sentence.

Wendy Thompson was drinking alcohol while driving along U.S. Highway 36 in Parke County when she rear-ended Tina Redman’s car, causing it to hit a Jeep Cherokee driving in the opposite direction. Redman had slowed down for an Amish wagon. The accident resulted in serious injuries to Redman, her daughter, and the two passengers in the Cherokee.

Thompson’s BAC was 0.25 and she also tested positive for benzodiazepines, for which she had a valid prescription. But the drug intensifies the effects of alcohol.

The state charged her with eight counts, but Thompson pleaded guilty to four Class D felony operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 causing serious bodily injury. She was sentenced to three years each for Counts I and II and 180 days each for Counts III and IV. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively, for a total of seven years, with two years suspended to probation.

Thompson argued before the trial court and again on appeal that she couldn’t be sentenced to consecutive sentences longer than four years based on I.C. 35-50-1-2(c). This section says the total consecutive terms of imprisonment shall not exceed the advisory sentence for a felony one class higher than the most serious of the felonies for which a person has been convicted.

In Thompson’s case, this would be the advisory sentence of four years for a Class C felony. She would be correct as long as her crime is not considered a “crime of violence,” the appellate court held, finding her Class D felonies to qualify under this distinction. Thus, the maximum-sentence restriction does not apply.

The judges relied on the statutory citation next to the text of the offense under subdivision 15, “Operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury to another person (IC 9-30-5-4).” They believed the citation to the statute is evidence that the Legislature intended to include both crimes within the definition of a “crime of violence.”

The COA also upheld her sentence, noting the significant injuries the vehicle occupants suffered – and continue to deal with today – as well as Thompson’s inability to admit the extent of her problems with alcohol.

By John Krull
TheStatehouseFile.com

INDIANAPOLIS – A short time after the Indiana Senate opted to delay putting a controversial proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot for at least two years, President Pro Tem David Long, R-Fort Wayne, said

John Krull, publisher, TheStatehouseFile.com

something disturbing.

Reporters asked Long whether a federal court decision the day before that struck down a key piece of Kentucky’s constitutional ban on gay marriage had affected the Senate’s decision. The language in Kentucky’s constitution was virtually identical to Indiana’s proposed amendment.

“I am convinced that it does not make a difference. In the end, the United States Supreme Court will make the decision on whether or not it’s a state-by-state determination or whether the 14^thamendment will rule and that all marriage is the same,” Long said.

If that’s the case, then the question is: Why?

If the issue of gay marriage ultimately is going to be decided by the Supreme Court, then why did the leaders of this state – including Long – push Indiana through this protracted and increasingly ugly battle?

Why did Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, sow seeds of mistrust with his sleight-of-hand reassignment of House Joint Resolution 3 from one committee to another just so he could get it to the floor? Why did Elections Committee Chairman Milo Smith, R-Columbus, kick a 20-year U.S. Air Force veteran out of a committee meeting for making a silent gesture of disapproval?

Why did Long, Bosma and Gov. Mike Pence keep Hoosiers at each others’ throats for weeks?

If Long is right and the only votes that truly count on this issue are the nine that sit on the nation’s highest court, why did the people of Indiana have go to war with each other?

I ask the question not just for the many, many gay and lesbian Hoosiers who, even though they won a significant victory by delaying HJR 3’s implementation, still feel as though their rights as citizens and their dignity as human beings are under constant assault.

I also ask it on behalf of the social conservatives who came away from this bruising process feeling as though they had lost something precious.

I won’t pretend that I think the social conservatives’ cause is just – because it isn’t – but I know that their concern is genuine. The best of their leadership – Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute, for example – sincerely sees this not as an assault on gay Hoosiers but as a defense of an essential building block in the foundation of a healthy and just social order.

Conservatives such as Smith don’t like gay marriage, but they also don’t like seeing high divorce rates, large numbers of children being born out of wedlock and what they perceive as a social order under assault. They feel embattled and under siege, as if all they held dear were being torn away from them.

And if Bosma, Long and Pence had wanted to devise a process that would make social conservatives feel even more embattled, embittered and under siege, they couldn’t have found a better process than the one through which our leaders just pushed Hoosiers.

At moments of conflict such as these, skilled leaders remind citizens of the things that unite us and assure us that, regardless of the outcome, we will remain one country, one state, one community, one family.

Indiana’s leaders didn’t do that.

Instead of calming the waters, Long, Bosma and Pence roiled them. Instead of mollifying fears, at every turn they exacerbated tensions. Instead of counseling peace, at every opportunity they escalated the conflict.

They left both winners and losers in this Indiana family feud feeling bruised, battered and resentful.

And, in the end, perhaps without meaning to, Long acknowledged that Indiana’s leaders did what they did for no good reason. The final decision about gay marriage wasn’t, isn’t and won’t be in Hoosiers’ hands.

That’s just pitiful.

At a time when Hoosiers most needed leadership, Indiana’s leaders did everything but lead.

John Krull is director of Franklin College’s Pulliam School of Journalism, host of “No Limits” WFYI 90.1 Indianapolis and publisher of TheStatehouseFile.com, a news website powered by Franklin College journalism students.