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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT