May, J.
Brent Orange appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for specialized driving privileges. He argues he is statutorily entitled to a hearing and the trial court erred when it did not hold a hearing prior to its denial of his petition. He also contends the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his petition on its merits. We affirm.
….
Orange argues the trial court erred when it did not grant his request for a hearing on his petition for specialized driving privileges pursuant to Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3…
….
…The corresponding language in the current statute requires the prosecuting attorney to “appear on behalf of the bureau to respond to a petition,” Ind. Code § 9-30-16-3(b),but does not include language the appearance must be made in person as was required by Indiana Code section 9-24-15-4 (1991) (repealed 2015). Therefore, we conclude the legislature intended to change the language of the statute to remove the requirement that the trial court hold a hearing regarding a petition to grant specialized driving privileges after the suspension of a petitioner’s driver’s license. See Ind. Dept. of State Rev., Sales Tax Div. v. Cable Brazil, Inc., 177 Ind. App. 450, 458-9, 380 N.E.2d 555, 559-60 (1978) (“presumption is raised that the Legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears an amendment was made only to express more clearly the original intention of the Legislature”), reh’g denied.
We note that our holding addresses only whether a trial court is required to hold a hearing pursuant to Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3. While a trial court is not required to hold a hearing under the statute, it may still err if it fails to grant a petitioner’s request for a hearing when the petition raises claims of possible merit. See, e.g., Osmanov v. State, 40 N.E.3d 904, 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial court may err if it does not grant a request for a hearing when petition for postconviction relief raised claims of possible merit). However, as we note infra., Orange’s petition did not raise claims of possible merit, and thus the trial court properly denied his request for a hearing.
….
As an issue of first impression, we hold Indiana Code section 9-30-16-3 does not require the trial court to hold a hearing prior to making a decision on a petition for specialized driving privileges. Additionally, the trial court did not err when it did not hold a hearing because Orange’s petition did not assert any claims of merit. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Orange’s petition for specialized driving privileges. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Altice, J., concur.