ILNews

COA: State didn't meet burden for probation revocation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held – with a few exceptions – that a trial court may revoke probation for not satisfying a financial obligation only if the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence there is less than full payment and the probationer submitted that smaller payment recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.

This issue arose in Troy R. Smith v. State of Indiana, No. 35A02-1008-CR-996. Troy Smith appealed his revocation of probation for not paying child support weekly, which was a condition of his probation. At first, Smith was current on his payments of weekly child support and arrearage. When the trial court increased his obligation, Smith continued to pay the previous amount. His payments later became intermittent and some were only partial payments after he lost his job and suffered health issues.

At the hearing to revoke his probation, Smith didn’t explicitly admit he fell behind in payments, but explained he had serious health conditions, lost his job as a truck driver, and had submitted job applications to no avail. The trial court revoked his probation, finding he failed to make regular payments when he was employed and after he lost his job. He was sentenced to three years in prison.

To revoke probation, the state only has to prove a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Revocation is a two-step process – the court makes a factual determination the probation violation occurred and the court determines if the violation warrants revocation. Probation for not paying can’t be revoked unless the person recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally doesn’t pay.

The Court of Appeals concluded there was no indication that Smith knew or was aware of a high probability that his partial payments would equate failure to make weekly payments. They held that ruling his partial payments constituted a knowing failure would render the statutory mental state requirement for revocation meaningless and contrary to public policy.

“To conclude Smith’s partial payments constitute a knowing failure to make weekly payments would discourage partial payment for the benefit (albeit limited) of his children in favor of no payment at all,” wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb.

She noted that partial payments don’t always foreclose a finding of knowing or intentional failure to pay.

Citing Szpunar v. State, 914 N.E.2d 773 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), and Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 616 (Ind. 2010), the judges explained that it is the state that has the burden to prove both the violation and requisite state of mind in order to obtain a probation revocation.

“To prove ‘knowingly’ the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer was able to pay. Our holdings do not apply, of course, where a probationer admits his violation and the trial court proceeds directly to the second step of the revocation process,” wrote the chief judge.

Neither the state nor Smith made an explicit argument as to his ability to pay during any period. Because the state didn’t present evidence to establish his ability to pay during the relevant period, it didn’t satisfy its burden. The trial court abused its discretion in revoking Smith’s probation.  

The judges reversed the order, finding that even if he did violate his probation, the record doesn’t support revocation in full.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT