ILNews

Appeals court affirms revoked probation after test shows marijuana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man ordered to serve 90 days of a suspended one-year sentence for a conviction of misdemeanor marijuana possession wasn’t denied due process when his probation officer admitted evidence of a positive urinalysis, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.

In Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana, 32A01-1303-CR-123, Andrew Wann argued that the toxicology report was improperly admitted hearsay that didn’t meet the “substantial trustworthiness” test established in Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 n.1 (Ind. 2007). Wann also argued that the order to serve 90 days of his suspended sentence wasn’t authorized by statute.

Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote that the panel could not conclude from Reyes that, as Wann argued, an affidavit from a testing toxicologist was required to admit the urinalysis. And in any event, Wann had agreed to waive objection to the admissibility of the test results as a term of probation.

The court also rejected Wann’s argument that time he had served on the conviction, including good-time credit, plus time served on probation, was longer than the statutory maximum sentence of one year, and therefore it was outside the court’s discretion to order him to serve 90 days in jail.

“From the date of Wann’s November 10, 2009 sentence to his September 16, 2010 violation, 308 days had elapsed. The State alleged the violation within the probationary period, and subsequently proved the violation. Accordingly, the options of Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) were available to the trial court, including an order for ‘execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.’ The trial court acted within its statutory discretion to order that Wann serve 90 days in jail," Bailey wrote for the panel that also included Judges Cale Bradford and Melissa May.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Marijuana penalties too harsh
    58% of the American public believe that marijuana should be legalized. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol or tobacco. No one has ever died smoking marijuana. In a few years we will all wonder how the legislature could ever have passed such legislation.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT