May, J.
Tyson Daishan King appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. He presents two issues on appeal which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence that King committed Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended. We reverse.
…
King argues that when he was pulled over for a speeding violation on October 24, 2018, his suspension had already ended that day and, therefore, he cannot be found guilty of driving while suspended King takes issue with the trial court’s reasoning because, if affirmed, it would establish that “the expiration date would not be the ending date of the suspension . . . and that the suspension would run through the suspension date and would expire at 12:00 a.m. on the date immediately after the expiration date.” The State conversely argues that King’s suspension expired at the end of the day on October 24, 2018, thus King’s driver’s license was not valid until beginning of the day on October 25, 2018. Consequently, the primary issue in this appeal is when “expiration” occurs – whether the listed expiration date is the last full day that the suspension runs through, thereby ending at 11:59 p.m. that day, or whether the suspension ends at 12:00 a.m. on the listed date and is no longer in effect from the beginning of that day.
King’s certified BMV driving record includes all of the information that we know about his suspension. Specifically, the suspension at issue in this case, suspension ID 31 shows: (1) that King was suspended per BMV record; (2) that the reason King was suspended was due to delinquent child support; (3) the mail date of the suspension notice was July 31, 2018; (4) the effective date of the suspension was August 30, 2018; and (5) the expiration date of the suspension was October 24, 2018.
…
One Indiana case, which we find instructive, specifically considers the issue of how to regard the expiration of a period on a given date, albeit in the context of a term of office. In Vogel v. State ex rel. Laud, 107 Ind. 374, 8 N.E. 164 (1886) the appellee was commissioned as justice of the peace for four years beginning on April 17, 1882. One of the issues on appeal was when appellee’s term as justice of the peace expired. Our Indiana Supreme Court noted that if April 17, 1882, was to be included as the start of the term, then the four-year term ended at midnight on April 16, 1886. If it did not begin on April 17, 1882, the term ended at midnight on April 17, 1886. Id. at 166. Our Indiana Supreme Court ultimately decided that appellee’s term and duties began on April 17, 1882, thus “his term as justice of the peace expired at midnight of the sixteenth day of April, 1886,” id, and did not include April 17, 1886. In so ruling, the court reasoned that the four years of the term must have ended before the expiration date of April 17.
…
The evidence before us does not provide us with a distinct time-period for which King was suspended, no controlling words such as “until” or “to,” and no clear case law for comparison. Based on the certified BMV record, it is evident that King’s suspension went into effect on August 30, 2018; had he been pulled over for a violation on that day, it is of no question that he would have rightly been regarded as suspended. This understanding is in line with the reasoning adopted by the Vogel court. Our present case may be regarded as the inverse of the “first day excluded, last day included” rule because regardless whether the first day or last day is included and the other excluded as part of his suspension, King spends the same amount of days with his license suspended.
…
Based on the BMV manual’s statement, which is not sufficiently instructive, the holding of the Vogel decision, our understanding of the general rule for computation of days in various legal contexts, and the persuasive guidance of the cited out-of-state case, we hold that King’s suspension expired at 12:00 a.m. on October 24, 2018. See City of Overland Park, 567 P.2d at 695 (suspension must end by the stated expiration date). Based thereon, we conclude King’s driver’s license suspension was expired when Officer Hart initiated the traffic stop on October 24, 2018, and thus we reverse King’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended.
Conclusion
We hold that King’s driver’s license was not suspended when he was pulled over at approximately 11:30 a.m. on October 24, 2018, because his suspension expired at 12:00 a.m. on October 24, 2018. Accordingly, we reverse King’s Class A misdemeanor conviction.
Reversed.
Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.