ILNews

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.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT