Attorney for Appellant
    
J.J. Paul, III
Indianapolis, IN

Attorneys for Appellee

Steve Carter
Attorney General of Indiana

Scott A. Kreider
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN



     IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT
SALVATORE DESANTIS, 
Appellant (Defendant below),


                       v.
                        

                       STATE OF INDIANA, 
        Appellee (Plaintiff below  ).


)
)    Supreme Court No.
)    30S01-0210-CR-532
)
)    
)    
)
)
)



    APPEAL FROM THE HANCOCK SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Richard D. Culver, Judge
    Cause No. 30D02-9911-DF-1263


ON PETITION TO TRANSFER



October 29, 2002



SULLIVAN, Justice.



Salvatore Desantis appeals from a criminal conviction for driving after being su spended under the habitual traffic violator statutes. For more background, see our companion decision, Groce v. State, No. 49S02-0203-CR-202 (Ind. October 29, 2002), also decided today.

    On October 7, 1994, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) sent Desantis a letter informing him that he was a habitual traffic violator (“HTV”) and that his license would be suspended effective November 17, 1994. On November 30, 1995, the BMV sent Desantis a letter outlining his right to judicial review of his license suspension. On November 19, 1999, Desantis was arrested for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OWI”) and operating a m otor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV. Desantis pled guilty to the OWI on November 20, 2000, and was tried by the court on the HTV charge. On January 5, 2001, the trial court convicted Desantis of operating a motor vehicle after being adjudged an HTV, and he was subsequently sentenced to one and one-half years in the Hancock County jail and suspension of his driver’s license for life.

    The Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See Desantis v. State, 760 N.E.2d 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).

    As outlined in our companion case, Desantis claims his HTV suspension is void ab initio given the BMV’s failure to provide information of judicial review opportunities in the original suspension notice. Consequently, Desantis requests his subsequent conviction for driving while suspended as an HTV be reversed. Because we hold in the companion case decided today that the underlying HTV suspension is valid and not void ab initio, there are no grounds to reverse the present conviction.

Conclusion


    We grant transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 58(A), adopt the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.