Chad A. Madden v. State of Indiana
25 N.E.3d 791
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Madden pled guilty in 2011 to a Class D felony; three-year suspended sentence imposed for Cause 487.
- In 2012 Madden faced new charges in Cause 305 while on probation in Cause 487.
- In 2012 Madden committed further offenses, leading to Cause 721 with multiple counts and a probation-revocation petition.
- In 2013 Madden pled guilty to reduced charges in Cause 721 and admitted probation violation; the court imposed multiple sentences and referred him to the Therapeutic Community Program (TCP).
- In 2014, after TCP completion, Madden petitioned for sentence modification; the court modified the sentence and ordered probation with Community Corrections (CC) placement and electronic monitoring as a potential term.
- Madden challenged the modification order via a motion to correct error asserting improper delegation to Community Corrections for determining electronic monitoring; the trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CC can determine electronic monitoring under probation | Madden argues it improperly delegated to CC. | State argues statutes authorize CC to supervise home detention and set monitoring. | No improper delegation; statutes authorize CC to supervise and set monitoring devices. |
| Whether the delegation violated due process | Madden asserts denial of hearing and counsel if CC determines monitoring. | State contends Madden received a hearing on modification; due process satisfied. | No due process violation; Madden had a hearing and rights were preserved. |
| Whether the plea agreement allowed the probation terms including home detention | Madden contends punitive home detention cannot be added absent explicit plea agreement. | State contends plea allowed modification and CC involvement; not restricted by plea. | Plea agreement did not constrain the court from modifying and invoking CC supervision; no error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freije v. State, 709 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. 1999) (trial court cannot add punitive conditions not in plea agreement)
- Jackson v. State, 968 N.E.2d 328 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (trial court cannot impose punitive conditions not in plea agreement; supports limits on delegation)
- Disney v. State, 441 N.E.2d 489 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (probationary conditions permissible if not punitive under plea)
- McGuire v. State, 625 N.E.2d 1281 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (trial court must set restitution terms; cannot outsource to probation)
- Pope v. State, 853 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (due process in probation revocation; notice and hearing requirements)
- Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (probation terms must be clearly stated; cannot impose undefined conditions)
- Seals v. State, 700 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (probation terms must be express; oral advisement insufficient without written terms)
- Berry v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1243 (Ind.2014) (probation conditions require clear statutory authority; limits on delegation)
- Dulin v. State, 169 Ind.App. 211, 346 N.E.2d 746 (Ind.App.1976) (probation restrictions must be definite and within statutory scope)
- Hurd v. State, 9 N.E.3d 720 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (probation terms must be reasonably related to treatment and public safety)