ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT