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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT