Justices uphold probation revocation

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court disagreed with the Indiana Court of Appeals that the appellate court could review a defendant's appeal - either because it qualified as a rare and exceptional case of great public interest or under Post-Conviction Rule 2. The Supreme Court deemed the man's failure to timely file an appeal to the revocation of his probation as fatal to his claim.

In Cornelius Cooper v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-0904-CR-135, Cornelius Cooper appealed the original order revoking his probation after his motion to reconsider was denied. Cooper was arrested and charged following a domestic dispute with his wife. No witnesses or evidence were introduced at his probation revocation hearing. Cooper believed that if the charges were dropped, he would be put back on probation, so he didn't appeal the revocation of his probation.

After the charges were dismissed, the court held a hearing on Cooper's motion to reconsider. The trial court denied it based on the evidence presented surrounding the incident with his wife.

Cooper appealed, claiming the trial court violated his due process by revoking his probation without allowing him to present witnesses, cross examine, or be heard; and the reconsideration hearing didn't cure the violation because the trial court impermissibly shifted the state's burden of proof to him.

It's abundantly clear that Cooper wasn't afforded even a minimal amount of due process, wrote Justice Robert Rucker for the majority. But Cooper chose not to appeal the decision to revoke his probation and instead waited until the charges were dropped to bring his claim.

By not filing a notice of appeal within 30 days, Cooper forfeited his right to challenge on appeal the order revoking his probation except as provided by PCR 2, wrote the justice.

The Court of Appeals was split on why it should address the merits of Cooper's claims - the majority believed it was of great public interest and Judge Nancy Vaidik thought Cooper's appeal should be considered under PCR 2.

The majority of justices disagreed with Judge Vaidik because PCR 2 is for petitioners when the failure to timely file the notice was not the petitioner's fault and the petitioner was diligent in trying to file notice.

The justices also didn't believe the case qualifies as rare or exceptional to require the court to invoke any discretion it has to entertain the merits of Cooper's probation revocation. The only proper issue before the high court is whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconsider.

There was ample evidence before the trial court that Cooper violated the terms of his probation, despite the charges being dropped, so Cooper wasn't prejudiced by the denial, Justice Rucker wrote.

Justice Theodore Boehm dissented without an opinion, in which he agreed with Judge Vaidik's opinion concurring in the result reached by the Court of Appeals.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.