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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT