Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 344
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dokes pled guilty in 2007 to Class B felony burglary and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, receiving a 10-year sentence with six years suspended to probation.
- Probation terms prohibited firearm possession, prohibited new crimes, and required payment of probation fees.
- On April 27, 2011 the State charged Dokes with possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon and petitioned to revoke probation for a new offense and for failure to pay fees.
- Probation revocation hearing was held simultaneously with the bench trial on the criminal charge; Dokes stipulated to his prior felony conviction.
- Two witnesses testified they saw Dokes handle or possess a handgun found near the dead body of his cousin, Ramon Hamilton.
- The court found Dokes not guilty of being a felon in possession, but revoked probation based on the alleged new offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Dokes was on probation. | State relied on the combined hearing and witnesses confirming probation. | Dokes disputes probation status due to procedural stipulations. | Yes, sufficient to prove probation status. |
| Whether the gun-possessing testimony was incredibly dubious under Love/Fajardo standards. | Testimony was credible; not inherently improbable. | Only one witness; testimony could be inherently dubious. | Rule of incredibly dubious testimony does not apply. |
| Whether revocation could occur on preponderance evidence after acquittal on the underlying offense. | Probation can be revoked on preponderance even after acquittal. | Conviction not necessary before revocation. | Probation revoked on preponderance of the evidence despite acquittal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 1995) (probation revocation burden on preponderance of the evidence)
- Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002) (incredibly dubious testimony standard; not met here)
- Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (rule of incredibly dubious testimony—rare application)
- Hoffa v. State, 368 N.E.2d 250 (Ind. 1977) (distinct burden for revocation vs. criminal conviction)
- Thornton v. State, 792 N.E.2d 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (probation can be revoked on preponderance after acquittal)
- Jackson v. State, 420 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (evidence from trial ending in acquittal may support revocation)