Dameco Brent v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A02-1512-CR-2132
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 25, 2016Background
- Dameco Brent had suspended sentences from a 2007 Class B felony (dealing in cocaine) and a 2015 Class A misdemeanor conviction; both suspensions were subject to probation conditions.
- As a condition of probation, Brent was ordered to complete the Howard County Re-Entry Court Program and to report to Community Corrections immediately upon release from jail on July 29, 2015.
- Re-entry personnel on duty that day testified they did not see Brent and were not notified he had checked in.
- Brent testified he arrived with Carlos James (whose GPS bracelet records did not show a visit to the facility) and that he checked in with in-home detention case manager Robert Jones, who did not make the usual check-in entry and did not recall the interaction.
- The trial court found Brent’s testimony not credible, concluded by a preponderance of the evidence that Brent failed to report, terminated him from the re-entry program, revoked probation, and ordered execution of his previously suspended sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State met its burden to prove Brent failed to report to the re-entry program | The State argued witnesses did not see Brent or receive notice he checked in, and corroborating GPS data undercut Brent’s story | Brent argued lack of direct testimony proving he did not appear and relied on his own account that he checked in via Robert Jones | Court held the State met its burden; trial court credited State witnesses and discredited Brent’s testimony, affirming revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (probation-revocation review mirrors community corrections placement review)
- Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 1995) (State must prove probation violation by a preponderance; credibility is for the trial court)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (probation revocation procedures are flexible; hearsay admissible with indicia of reliability)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (hearsay admissible if it has substantial guarantees of trustworthiness)
- C.S. v. State, 735 N.E.2d 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- Peterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 494 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standards for admissibility and review in probation-revocation contexts)