Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 551
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Wann pled guilty to Possession of Marijuana (Class A misdemeanor) on Nov 10, 2009 and received a 365-day sentence suspended to probation.
- Probation conditions included drug testing and admissibility of toxicology results in revocation proceedings.
- Wann tested positive for marijuana, was arrested, admitted violation, and was ordered to serve 30 days of the suspended sentence.
- A second probation-violation notice alleged marijuana use on Sep 16, 2010; Wann was later arrested and held pending hearing.
- At a 2013 evidentiary hearing, Wann contended he had effectively served 308 days on probation plus 82 days in jail, leaving no remaining suspended time; court revoked probation and ordered 90 days in jail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the urinalysis report was properly admitted | Wann argues the report was hearsay and not trustworthy. | State relies on Reyes framework allowing reliable hearsay without live testimony. | Admissible; no due process violation; no requirement for live toxicologist affidavit. |
| Whether ordering 90 days of the suspended sentence violated statutory authority | Wann contends combined time exceeded statutory maximum for misdemeanor sentencing. | State maintains probation and imprisonment can be ordered as part of punishment within §35-38-2-3; Jennings does not apply to probation revocation. | Order was within statutory authority; not a violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (due process in probation revocation allows hearsay with reliability indicators)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (substantial trustworthiness test for hearsay in probation revocation)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (context for due process in probation proceedings)
- Jennings v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2013) (statutory limitation on combined term of imprisonment and probation; suspended time not counted as imprisonment for §35-50-3-1)
- Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (guides proper use of suspended sentence under §35-38-2-3)
- Williams v. State, 937 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (substantial trustworthiness of routine urinalysis report in probation revocation)
- Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (urinalysis report reliability supporting admissibility)
- Smith v. State, 621 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. 1993) (probation/suspended sentence considerations)