Background

• Butler challenged a probation-revocation ruling following a guilty plea to five counts of Class D felony theft and a four-year suspended probation with in-home detention originally imposed.
• State filed a petition to revoke direct placement in home detention and probation; violations alleged included late home-detention fees, multiple positive drug tests, high breath-alcohol readings, a noncompliant phone, and additional positive screens.
• Butler appeared pro se at the revocation hearing; the court advised him of the right to counsel and the potential penalties, and he admitted to violating probation.
• At a dispositional hearing, Butler admitted drug addiction and argued about payment and circumstances; the court later revoked probation and imposed the balance of the four-year suspended sentence with a recommendation for treatment.
• The trial court stated that Butler had a drug problem and that he needed to help himself before relief could be granted, and it recommended treatment while incarcerated.
• Butler appealed, arguing the waiver of counsel was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that the sentence was an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (probation revocation rights and waiver analysis)
• Greer v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1214 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (waiver of counsel when admitting probation violation without explicit warnings)
• Kubsch v. State, 866 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. 2007) (factors for determining knowing and voluntary waiver; no rigid admonishments required)
• Redington v. State, 678 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (need for awareness of pitfalls of self-representation)
• Hopper v. State, 934 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. 2010) (Faretta advisement required prospectively; abrogates Greer in some contexts)
• Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) (right to counsel due process framework)