ILNews

COA splits on need for evidentiary hearing in revocation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split as to whether only a chronological case summary entry indicating a man’s admissions to violating terms of community corrections placement is enough to bypass holding an evidentiary hearing.

When a probationer admits to a violation of probation, the due process requirements of an evidentiary hearing, and confrontation and cross-examination of the witnesses is unnecessary. Robert Beeler was serving his sentence following a guilty plea to felony robbery and criminal confinement in Marion County Community Corrections Home Detention. The state alleged he violated the terms of community corrections because he had been alleged to be a juvenile delinquent in another case and did not comply with the rules of home detention.

According to a CCS entry in Beeler’s robbery and criminal confinement case, he admitted to all four counts under the notice of violation of community corrections and the two counts charged under the notice of violation of probation. The trial court found he violated the terms and ordered him to serve six years of his previously suspended sentence.

Since Beeler didn’t object to the trial court revoking his community corrections placement and probation, he must prove the court made a fundamental error. The only indication on record that Beeler admitted to violating the terms was the CCS entry to that effect. In Robert Beeler v. State of Indiana, No. 49A05-1007-CR-456, the majority concluded that was enough to establish an admission and thus waive the requirement of an evidentiary hearing. The majority cited Epps v. State, 244 Ind. 515. 525, 192 N.E.2d 459, 464 (1963), and Trojnar v. Trojnar, 698 N.E.2d 301, 304 (Ind. 1998), to support their ruling.

Judge Terry Crone dissented, pointing out that there was no transcript containing Beeler’s admission. He disagreed with the state’s position that the appellate court should be able to rely on the trial court’s assertions in its docket to establish the truth of events even when the transcript doesn’t specifically verify them.

“Given the fundamental due process and liberty interests at stake, and given that the transcript actually contradicts the CCS’s version of events, I disagree with the State’s position,” he wrote. “If Beeler admitted to a probation violation off the record – a fact that Beeler does not concede on appeal – it was incumbent upon the State to ensure that the admission was repeated on the record. This it failed to do.”

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT