State v. Akins

I respectfully dissent because I disagree with the majority's holding that Aking's prior conviction under Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625 did not constitute a "previous conviction of operating while intoxicated" for purposes of Ind.Code § 9-80-5-3. Consequently, I would reverse the trial court's dismissal of the charge of operating *1099a vehicle while intoxicated as a class D felony and remand for further proceedings.

As an initial matter, I must disagree with the majority's statement that Akins was previously convicted of operating while visibly impaired ("DWVI") under Mich. Comp. Law § 257.625(8).…