Anthony Eshelman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
15A04-1703-CR-476
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2017Background
- Anthony Eshelman pled guilty (Jan 2007) to Class B felony burglary; sentenced to 15 years with 13 years suspended to probation.
- First probation revocation issues arose in 2008–2009: drug positives and new offenses (including a Class C robbery); he pled guilty to robbery, received 8 years executed, and 4 years of the suspended sentence were revoked.
- Eshelman was released to probation again in Sept. 2015. In May 2016 he was charged with Level 5 felony criminal confinement (two counts) and Class A misdemeanor theft for confining his girlfriend and her 11‑year‑old daughter and stealing a phone.
- The trial court found Eshelman violated probation and ordered revocation of the remaining nine‑year balance of his suspended sentence.
- Eshelman appealed, arguing due process violation based on judicial bias and that revoking the full nine years was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge was biased, denying due process | State: judge acted neutrally and lawfully | Eshelman: judge’s prior statements and 2009 order show bias and predecided outcome | Court: no bias; statements reflect permissible sentencing history and reasoning, not impartiality breach |
| Whether trial court improperly considered prior convictions/prior violations | State: prior history is relevant to sanctioning | Eshelman: reliance on past history shows prejudice | Court: consideration of criminal history and past violations is proper in revocation sentencing |
| Whether revoking full remaining nine years was an abuse of discretion | State: revocation appropriate given repeated violations and new felonies | Eshelman: claimed mitigating factors (employment, education, support, programs) make him a poor candidate for full revocation | Court: not an abuse; repeated reoffending after leniency justified revocation |
| Standard of review for probation revocation sentencing | State: apply abuse of discretion review | Eshelman: (implicit) seeks reversal under same standard | Court: applies abuse of discretion; trial court given considerable leeway in revocation decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (abuse of discretion review for probation revocation sentencing)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (trial judge has leeway after granting probation; abuse of discretion standard)
- Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court may execute suspended sentence upon finding probation violation within probationary period)
- Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. 2006) (probation is a privilege; revocation implicates liberty interest and requires some due process, including neutral hearing body)
- Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. 2002) (presumption of judicial impartiality; defendant must show actual bias)
- Perry v. State, 904 N.E.2d 302 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (assess judge’s impartiality by actions and demeanor)
- Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243 (Ind. 1997) (criteria for judicial impartiality review)
- Tharpe v. State, 955 N.E.2d 836 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (adverse rulings or maximum sentences alone do not establish judicial bias)