ILNews

Man entitled to new probation revocation hearing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a new probation revocation hearing for a Wells County man after finding the reasons by the special judge as to why the man should serve his entire previously suspended sentence were “problematic.”

Jesse Puckett was 18 years old when he had sex with a 12-year-old girl, whom he thought was older based on how she looked and what the girl told him. Puckett pleaded guilty to one count of Class C felony child molesting in exchange for the dismissal of two Class B felony molesting charges. He received a sentence of four years, suspended to probation. The state later alleged Puckett violated probation for several reasons, including having contact with a person under the age of 18 and failing to register as a sex offender.

Puckett pleaded guilty to one count of Class D felony failure to register, and most of that sentence was suspended with the remaining six months executed. At a hearing on the state’s third amended petition to revoke probation, a special judge had to be appointed because the prosecutor at the time of Puckett’s original sentencing was now the trial judge. Puckett indicated he would admit to violating his probation by committing the Class D felony failure to register and the state would dismiss and not present any evidence on any of the other probation violation allegations.

Special Judge James Heimann made several comments before imposing the sentence on Puckett, including references to Puckett having sex with the 12-year-old, even though his guilty plea was only on a charge of fondling with intent to arouse. Heimann also commented about how he often checks the sex offender registry for information around his home and was surprised that Puckett’s original sentence was completely suspended.

In Jesse Puckett v. State of Indiana, No. 90A02-1104-CR-369, the Court of Appeals found Heimann’s statements for entirely revoking Puckett’s probation and making him serve the four years that were suspended to be problematic. Heimann continually repeated displeasure with Puckett’s original plea agreement. A trial court’s belief that a sentence imposed under a plea agreement was “too lenient” isn’t a proper basis to use for determining the length of a sentence to be imposed for a probation revocation, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. It’s also improper when revoking probation for a trial court to find that the defendant actually committed a more serious crime than the one or ones of which he or she was originally convicted.

The judges didn’t hold that any single “error” in a probation revocation statement will warrant reversal, but taken together, the trial court’s statement of reasons regarding Puckett’s revocation leads the appellate court to find Heimann abused his discretion by considering improper factors before imposing the sentence. They ordered another hearing on the revocation of probation. Barnes noted that the COA declined to require Heimann to recuse himself because there hasn’t been a motion for a change of judge.   
 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT