Jewell D. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 20A04-1701-CR-155

Background

Riley pled guilty to Class C felony child molesting in Jan 2015 and received a six-year sentence with five years suspended to probation; sex-offender treatment, registration, and an addictions assessment were among probation conditions.
Released to probation Sept 29, 2015; GPS monitoring was added in Feb 2016 after reported contact with a minor and leaving the county.
In June 2016 Riley admitted earlier probation violations (alcohol use, unpaid fees) and was sanctioned with time-served, continued on probation with GPS, and ordered to obtain an addiction evaluation and follow recommendations.
In Dec 2016 the State filed a second violation notice alleging failure to complete the addiction evaluation/treatment, failure to pay fees (costs, probation/user fees, GPS fees), and failure to attend/participate in court‑approved sex‑offender treatment.
Evidence at the Dec 29, 2016 hearing: Riley attended one evaluation at ARC but stopped treatment, claimed expense as the reason and did not pursue alternative providers on the provided list; probation officer testified Riley had sufficient household income and did not qualify for financial assistance; Riley owed various fees and had been suspended from sex-offender treatment for failing to progress and for unpaid fees.
The trial court found Riley violated probation, concluded he was not credible about inability to pay and was not engaged in treatment, revoked probation, ordered three years executed in DOC, and extended probation one year upon release.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State proved Riley knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally violated probation conditions (including failing to pay and to follow treatment orders)	State: Evidence showed Riley understood obligations, chose ARC and then stopped attending, did not pursue cheaper alternatives, and knew he owed fees — therefore he knowingly/recklessly failed to comply	Riley: No evidence he knowingly/recklessly attempted to circumvent orders; claimed inability to pay and that cost prevented treatment	Court: Affirmed — sufficient evidence that Riley failed to comply and trial court reasonably disbelieved inability-to-pay claim; revocation not an abuse of discretion
Whether Riley’s failure to pay fees warranted revocation absent proof of mens rea or inability to pay	State: Must prove mens rea (knowingly/recklessly/ intentionally) but record supports inference of knowledge from conduct	Riley: Argues inability to pay and lack of mens rea precludes revocation	Court: Mens rea can be inferred circumstantially; trial court found Riley had means and did not prove inability to pay, so revocation proper
Whether failure to participate in sex‑offender treatment alone supports revocation	State: Nonparticipation violates probation condition; this was established	Riley: Did not contest this in terms of inability to pay; argued generally about financial limits	Court: Riley’s failure to attend and progress in sex‑offender treatment was sufficient to support revocation; court emphasized noncompliance and lack of good-faith effort

Key Cases Cited

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary and revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (probation revocation is civil; State must prove violations by a preponderance)
Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 2012) (mens rea for failure-to-pay probation obligations may be inferred; State bears burden to prove recklessness/knowledge/intent)
Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010) (State must prove both violation and requisite state of mind for financial-condition violations)
Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (probationer bears burden to show inability to pay and bona fide efforts to pay)
Young v. State, 761 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. 2002) (knowledge as mental state may be proven by circumstantial evidence and inferred from circumstances)