The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation of a man’s probation after he admitted a violation to the judge at his hearing on petition to revoke.
Timothy Hammerlund was on probation following a plea agreement on a drug charge. At the initial hearing on the petition to revoke alleging that Hammerlund failed a drug screen, Hammerlund was advised of his rights to have an attorney. Hammerlund said he understood and admitted that he took the Alprazolam. The trial judge asked Hammerlund if he was admitting to violating his probation by testing positive for the drug and that he would waive his rights he was advised of earlier in the hearing. Hammerlund said he understood.
After his probation was revoked, he appealed, arguing that his wavier of counsel wasn’t knowing or voluntary because the trial judge didn’t question him regarding whether he was aware of the nature, extent and importance of the right to counsel or the pitfalls of waiving it.
In Timothy Hammerlund v. State of Indiana, No. 33A05-1110-CR-562, the appellate court likened his case to Greer v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1214, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), in which that panel found Greer’s waiver of counsel was valid. The record in Hammerlund’s case establishes he made a knowing, intelligent and voluntary wavier of counsel. He also didn’t contend or establish he suffered any prejudice.