Brian Clinton Judd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A02-1611-CR-2726
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2017Background
- In 2009 Judd pleaded guilty but mentally ill to criminal confinement (Class B) and domestic battery (Class A misdemeanor); sentenced to 14 years total with 6 years executed and 8 years suspended to probation.
- May 2015: State filed first notice alleging domestic battery while on probation; after hearing court found a violation but imposed only 27 days and returned Judd to probation with existing conditions (including a no-contact order).
- August 2015: Second notice alleged violation of the no-contact order; Judd admitted and was ordered to serve one year of his suspended sentence.
- October 2016: Third notice alleged (1) commission of domestic battery (Level 5), (2) substantial steps toward possession of a syringe (Level 6) based on a syringe found in Judd’s bedroom dresser, (3) failure to abstain from illicit drugs (positive methamphetamine test), and (4) curfew violation.
- At the third hearing Judd admitted the positive drug test; the court found he took substantial steps toward syringe possession and violated curfew, revoked probation in part, and ordered him to serve five years of his previously suspended sentence while continuing probation upon release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that syringe was Judd’s | State: syringe found in Judd’s bedroom drawer supports finding it was his | Judd: drawer contained men’s and women’s clothing so syringe could belong to a female; evidence insufficient | Court: State met preponderance standard; syringe in Judd’s bedroom supported finding and court will not reweigh evidence; also independently sufficient proof from positive drug test and other violations |
| Sufficiency of evidence for probation violation (drug use/curfew/substantial steps) | State: positive drug screen, curfew violation, and syringe discovery support violations | Judd: challenges chain of proof regarding syringe; admits drug test but minimizes significance | Court: admission of positive methamphetamine test alone suffices; other violations proven by preponderance |
| Appropriateness of five-year executed sentence upon revocation | State: revocation and execution of part of suspended sentence warranted given repeated violations | Judd: argues five-year execution is an abuse of discretion given nature/number of violations | Court: no abuse of discretion; repeated noncompliance after prior leniency justified executing five years of suspended sentence |
| Standard of review for revocation and sentencing | State: trial court’s factual findings and sentencing for probation violation reviewed for preponderance/abuse of discretion | Judd: requests de novo or reweighing of evidence | Court: applies preponderance standard for violations and abuse-of-discretion review for sentencing decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2014) (probation violation proved by preponderance; appellate review considers evidence most favorable to judgment)
- Baxter v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (violation of any single probation condition is sufficient to revoke probation)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (sentencing after probation revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (defines abuse of discretion standard in sentencing)
- Davis v. State, 743 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (probation is a matter of grace, not a right)
- Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (probation conditions are restrictions accepted in lieu of incarceration)
- Jones v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (probation promotes rehabilitation and protects the public)