Brian K. Ellison v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
69A04-1705-CR-986
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 6, 2017Background
- In 2014 Ellison pleaded guilty to Class D felony theft; court suspended a three-year sentence to probation with conditions prohibiting new crimes and alcohol use.
- In August 2016 the State filed a notice alleging Ellison violated probation by committing OWI while on probation.
- At the April 7, 2017 hearing the parties presented a plea agreement: Ellison would admit the violation and receive 730 days on home detention.
- The trial judge indicated reluctance to accept the agreement given Ellison’s record, informed Ellison the court was not bound by counsel’s recommendation, and placed Ellison under oath and advised him of rights.
- Ellison knowingly and voluntarily admitted the alleged violation in open court; the trial court revoked probation and ordered the balance of the suspended sentence to be served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ellison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by rejecting the parties’ plea agreement but accepting Ellison’s admissions and imposing a harsher sanction | Court may reject plea recommendations and then accept an admission; revocation appropriate after admission | Trial court should have been bound by the parties’ agreement or at least held a fact-finding hearing after rejecting the agreement | Court rejected Ellison’s claim: judge declined the agreement, advised Ellison, Ellison knowingly admitted the violation, so revocation and sentence were proper |
| Whether a fact-finding hearing was required after the court refused the recommendation | Admission in open court obviates separate fact-finding hearing | A hearing was required because the court rejected the plea agreement | Court held no fact-finding hearing was required once defendant admitted the violation knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary; review of revocation is for abuse of discretion)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (probation revocation requires factual finding of violation and then sanctioning)
- Cozart v. State, 897 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. 2008) (abuse of discretion includes misinterpretation of law)
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (explaining two-step probation revocation process and standard of review)