Justices split on imprisonment for violating probation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state must prove a probationer accused of violating a term involving a payment by not paying did it recklessly, knowingly or intentionally. The burden is on the probationer to show an inability to pay, the Indiana Supreme Court decided in an opinion handed down Wednesday afternoon.

Dannie Ray Runyon appealed the trial court’s revocation of his probation and reinstatement of the six of the eight years he was sentenced to for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependent child and owing more than $15,000 in child support arrearages. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed.

In Dannie Ray Runyon v. State of Indiana, No. 57S04-1006-CR-317, the justices held that it’s up to the state to prove that a probationer violated a term of probation and that if the term involved a payment requirement, that the failure to pay was reckless, knowing, or intentional. Based on Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008), they ruled that a defendant probationer has the burden to show facts related to an inability to pay and indicating sufficient bona fide efforts to pay so as to persuade the trial court that he or she shouldn’t be imprisoned.

Runyon’s probation revocation hearing happened in two segments. At the first one, Runyon admitted he violated his probation conditions by not making required payments. His attorney asked for a continuance because Runyon had pending employment. At the second segment two weeks later, Runyon claimed to have a job but couldn’t show a written job offer. Runyon claimed he had a hard time finding work after he was laid off from his manufacturing job in the RV industry. The trial court asked Runyon about his failure to make payments when he was employed before being laid off and asked about other resource possibilities.

The trial judge ordered he serve six years of his sentence, which the majority declined to find was an abuse of discretion. The majority also found that Runyon’s admittance that he violated his probation conditions and didn’t make payments was sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Runyon violated his probation and he knowingly failed to pay, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. They also concluded that Runyon didn’t meet his burden of proof to show inability to pay.

But Justice Frank Sullivan dissented on these issues. He didn’t agree the state met its burden of proving Runyon’s not paying was reckless, knowing or intentional just because he admitted he had violated probation and didn’t make the required payments. Justice Sullivan also thought Runyon sufficiently established his inability to pay by explaining his job loss, inability to get a new job, and that the low wages he made when he was working all prevented him from making payments.

Justice Sullivan agreed Runyon was out of compliance with the terms of his probation, but didn’t believe it was lawful to incarcerate him based on these facts.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.