COA splits, reverses probation revocation

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was split today in its decision to reverse the revocation of a defendant's probation. The judges didn't agree that the probation revocation hearing comported with due process.

Judges Carr Darden and Margret Robb believed the circumstances surrounding Paul Davis' case were similar to that of Martin v. State, 813 N.E.2d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). In that case, the trial court revoked Martin's probation after he admitted being arrested and that charges were pending, but the state provided no evidence or the probable cause affidavit for the charges prior to the court finding he violated his probation. The appellate court overturned the revocation, finding the evidence was insufficient to support revoking his probation.

In Davis v. State, No. 49A04-0907-CR-379, Davis' attorney admitted at the probation revocation hearing that Davis had been arrested but didn't state what the allegations were. His attorney also told the judge "The agreement is twelve years DOC contingent also upon the fact that if he beats that Court Five case, we would be allowed to come back to have the twelve years revisited."

Just as in Martin, the state failed to provide evidence that Davis had committed a criminal offense. The trial court was unaware as to the specific allegations and Davis' attorney only admitted that Davis was arrested.

"As there was only an admission to an arrest without a probable cause finding and neither party entered the probable cause affidavit into evidence, we find that the probation revocation hearing denied Davis minimum due process," wrote Judge Darden.

The majority also rejected the state's argument that Davis wasn't entitled to due process rights because he admitted to violating his probation. But when the admission itself is insufficient to support a probation revocation, it doesn't render the procedural due process safeguards and evidentiary hearing unnecessary, wrote the judge.

In his dissent, Judge Paul Mathias acknowledged that an arrest, standing alone, doesn't support the revocation of probation, but Davis didn't just admit he had been arrested. He also referred to the agreement between Davis and the state that he agreed his probation would be revoked, but he would have the right to revisit the issue if he was acquitted on the pending charges.

"Here, Davis not only admitted to the historical fact that he had been arrested, his counsel also agreed that his probation would be revoked. Although Davis did not personally speak during the revocation hearing, his counsel's admission is binding on him," he wrote.

For these reasons, he would hold Davis wasn't denied due process and would uphold his probation revocation.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So the prosecutor made an error and the defendants get a full remedy. Just one short paragraph to undo the harm of the erroneous prosecution. Wow. Just wow.

  2. Wake up!!!! Lawyers are useless!! it makes no difference in any way to speak about what is important!! Just dont tell your plans to the "SELFRIGHTEOUS ARROGANT JERKS!! WHO THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN ANOTHER MAN/WOMAN!!!!!!

  3. Looks like you dont understand Democracy, Civilized Society does not cut a thiefs hands off, becouse now he cant steal or write or feed himself or learn !!! You deserve to be over punished, Many men are mistreated hurt in many ways before a breaking point happens! grow up !!!

  4. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  5. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"