Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3 (2026)

Penalties; prior offenses; passenger less than 18 years of age

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a person who violates section 1 or 2 of this chapter commits a Level 6 felony if:

(1) the person has a previous conviction of operating while intoxicated that occurred within the seven (7) years immediately preceding the occurrence of the violation of section 1 or 2 of this chapter; or

(2) the person:

(A) is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;

(B) violates section 1(b), 1(c), or 2(b) of this chapter; and

(b) A person who violates section 1 or 2 of this chapter or subsection (a)(2) commits a Level 5 felony if:

(1) the person has a previous conviction of operating while intoxicated causing death or catastrophic injury (IC 9-30-5-5); or

(2) the person has a previous conviction of operating while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury (IC 9-30-5-4).

[Pre-1991 Recodification Citation: 9-11-2-3.]

As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.18. Amended by P.L.175-2001, SEC.7, P.L.243-2001, SEC.1 and P.L.291-2001, SEC.222; P.L.82-2004, SEC.1; P.L.126-2008, SEC.9; P.L.158-2013, SEC.159; P.L.184-2019, SEC.4; P.L.142-2020, SEC.9.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 163 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: State v. Rans, 739 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Rans, 739 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 28× “The State presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether Rans' previous conviction in Michigan of Operating a Vehicle While Visibly Impaired ("DWVI"), a misdemeanor, constitutes a "previous conviction of operating while intoxicated" under Indiana Code Section 9-30-5-3.…”

Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 10× “In such cases, the court's judgment, Chronological Case Summary, and SR-16 Abstract of Court Record, should reflect that judgment was entered for a violation of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-3 (not Indiana Code section 9-30-5-1 or -2).”

Freeman v. State, 658 N.E.2d 68 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 8× “[2] Recodified at Ind.Code Ann. § 9-30-5-3 (West 1992). [3] The State made this allegation based on Freeman's commission of the requisite predicate offenses.”

Devore v. State, 657 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 10× “The State charged him with operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), Ind. Code Ann. § 9-30-5-2 (West 1992), [1] and sought to elevate the charge from a class A misdemeanor to a class D felony, Ind.”

State v. Akins, 795 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 26× “STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant-Plaintiff, State of Indiana (State), appeals the trial court's grant of Appellee-Defendant Loren Akins' (Akins), Motion to Dismiss Count II, operating a vehicle while intoxicated while having a prior conviction, a Class D felony, Ind. Code §…”

Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “§ 9-30-5-2(a); I.C. § 9-30-5-3(a)(1). Combs makes no contention that he did not operate a vehicle or that he does not have a conviction for operating while intoxicated within the past five years.”

Simmons v. State, 962 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 8× “Simmons argues that elevating his conviction to a Class C felony based on a statute that was enacted after he committed his prior OWI is an ex post facto violation.”

Woodward v. State, 798 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 10× “NOTES [1] Ind.Code Ann. § 9-30-5-3 (West, PREMISE through 2002 1st Special Sess.”

State v. Straub, 749 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “…prima facie error. Jones v. Harner, 684 N.E.2d 560 , 562 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). [2] Ind.Code § 9-30-5-1. [3] Ind.Code § 9-30-5-3.”

Weaver v. State, 702 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “Ind.Code § 9-30-5-3. 2 . Support for our conclusion is found in Haymaker v.”

Chad Thomas Burnell v. State of Indiana, 110 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “Code § 9-30-5-2 and I.C. § 9-30-5-3(a)(1). 2 I.C. § 9-30-15.5-2.”

Dannie Carl Pattison v. State of Indiana, 54 N.E.3d 361 (Ind. 2016). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code § 9-30-5-3. 4 . In imposing the sentence, the trial court considered the fáct that Pattison has eight previous convictions for varied drinking and driving offenses, making this one his ninth.”

Show all 163 citing cases →

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(1) — 1 case

Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a) — 5 cases

Beldon v. State, 926 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2010). “In such cases, the court's judgment, Chronological Case Summary, and SR-16 Abstract of Court Record, should reflect that judgment was entered for a violation of Indiana Code section 9-30-5-3 (not Indiana Code section 9-30-5-1 or -2).”

Damon Ray Bowers v. State of Indiana, 980 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Richard Dillon v. State of Indiana, 993 N.E.2d 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).

Brady McDaniel v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).

Roy L. Streicher v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a)(1) — 14 cases

Chad Thomas Burnell v. State of Indiana, 110 N.E.3d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “Code § 9-30-5-2 and I.C. § 9-30-5-3(a)(1). 2 I.C. § 9-30-15.5-2.”

Combs v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “§ 9-30-5-2(a); I.C. § 9-30-5-3(a)(1). Combs makes no contention that he did not operate a vehicle or that he does not have a conviction for operating while intoxicated within the past five years.”

Brooks Berg v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Renicka Hoskins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a)(2)(C) — 1 case

Jared W. Baehl v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(a)(l) — 6 cases

Jesse Wharton v. State of Indiana, 42 N.E.3d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Brooks Berg v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 506 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

State of Indiana v. Justin Bazan, 45 N.E.3d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

State v. Eichorst, 957 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

— Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3(b) — 1 case

Simmons v. State, 962 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “Simmons argues that elevating his conviction to a Class C felony based on a statute that was enacted after he committed his prior OWI is an ex post facto violation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.