Antonio Waters v. State of Indiana
65 N.E.3d 613
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2008 Antonio Waters assaulted S.C.: punched her, attempted sexual penetration, forced oral sex, and strangled her; he was charged with multiple offenses.
- In 2009 Waters pled guilty to criminal deviate conduct, battery resulting in bodily injury, and strangulation; the court sentenced him to 21.5 years with 5.5 years suspended to probation.
- At sentencing the court announced standard probation conditions but deferred imposition of sex-offender conditions until a hearing "within thirty days of release"; Waters did not object at that time.
- In March 2016, one day before Waters’ release from DOC, the court held the deferred hearing and imposed 26 probation conditions, including several restricting contact with minors and a broad internet ban.
- Waters appealed, arguing (1) the delayed hearing violated statutory and Rule 11 timing requirements and (2) many discretionary sex-offender conditions (notably four minor-contact restrictions and an internet ban) were unnecessary or overbroad.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed waiver of procedural objections, reversed four minor-contact conditions and narrowed the internet restriction, and otherwise affirmed the remaining conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of bifurcated/delayed probation-conditions hearing under IC §35-38-2-2.3(b) | State: Deferment was permissible; Waters waived any objection by not objecting in 2009. | Waters: Court placed him "on probation" in 2009, so conditions had to be provided then. | Waiver; no statutory violation—court’s 2009 remarks referred to prospective revocation, not immediate placement on probation. |
| Compliance with Criminal Procedure Rule 11 (sentencing within 30 days) | State: Scheduling beyond 30 days was acceptable and Waters waived the objection. | Waters: Six-plus year delay violates Rule 11. | Waived; defendant failed to object when court announced the delay, so cannot raise on appeal. |
| Restrictions on contact with minors (conditions 17,20,21,22) | State: Conditions serve public protection and rehabilitation. | Waters: Victim was an adult; no evidence he threatens children, so minor restrictions are unrelated. | Reversed—absent evidence of risk to minors or offenses involving minors, such contact restrictions are not reasonably related to rehabilitation/public safety (Bleeke applied). |
| Internet-access ban (condition 26) | State: Internet restriction aids supervision and prevents online facilitation of sexual contact. | Waters: Total ban is overbroad—he did not use the internet to commit the offense and has no related history. | Partially reversed—total/blanket ban is overbroad; court remanded to impose a narrowly tailored restriction (e.g., block dating sites, sexually explicit material, require PO approval for internet use). |
Key Cases Cited
- Bleeke v. Lemmon, 6 N.E.3d 907 (Ind. 2014) (parole conditions restricting contact with children require evidence defendant poses a risk to minors)
- Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld internet restrictions where related to defendant’s sexual-offense risk and internet use)
- Bogner v. Bogner, 29 N.E.3d 733 (Ind. 2015) (failure to object below waives appellate challenge to court procedure)
- Dudley v. State, 480 N.E.2d 881 (Ind. 1985) (a defendant who fails to object to sentencing beyond the thirty-day Rule 11 deadline cannot later claim error)