Jay E. Millen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 84A05-1606-CR-1359

In 2011 Jay E. Millen pled guilty to multiple offenses and received a ten-year sentence suspended to probation.
The State filed a petition to revoke Millen’s probation, alleging he committed new crimes while on probation, including obstruction of justice and false informing.
At the May 2016 revocation hearing the trial judge announced he would take judicial notice of Millen’s December 2015 convictions in a Division 1 case; Millen did not object.
The trial court found Millen had violated probation based on those convictions, revoked probation, and ordered Millen to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.
On appeal Millen argued the record contained no evidence the offenses occurred during his probationary period and thus could not support revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court could rely on judicially noticed convictions to show violations occurred during probation	State: judicial notice of court records is permitted and supports finding probation violation	Millen: record lacks proof the offenses occurred while he was on probation (no date in judicial notice)	Court: judicial notice of the Division 1 convictions encompassed the underlying records; Odyssey confirms offenses occurred June 2014 during probation; revocation affirmed
Whether convictions pending appeal could be used to revoke probation	State: convictions may be considered; the convictions were available and judicially noticed	Millen: convictions were on appeal at revocation, so they shouldn’t be used	Court: because the convictions were later affirmed, the court did not need to resolve this argument further (affirmed)

Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (discusses Rule 201 judicial notice and permissibility of taking notice of state court records)