Jimmy D. Tanksley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A05-1703-CR-480
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2017Background
- Jimmy D. Tanksley pleaded guilty to Class C felony battery with serious bodily injury and admitted habitual-offender status; the court imposed an aggregate 20-year executed sentence in DOC.
- The court indicated it might modify the sentence if Tanksley completed the Purposeful Incarceration Program; he completed it and later moved for sentence modification.
- The trial court modified his sentence on October 31, 2016, placing him in a Community Transition Program (CTP) and advised him of a court-stated zero-tolerance policy for drug/alcohol use; Tanksley signed CTP rules acknowledging the prohibition.
- On December 12, 2016, after a permitted leave, Tanksley returned smelling of alcohol, admitted drinking, and a urine screen showed methamphetamine, amphetamine, opiates, and morphine use.
- The CTP coordinator reported the violations to the court; Tanksley received notice and a revocation hearing (Jan. 23 & 30, 2017) where he was represented, confronted witnesses, and admitted to alcohol use (disputed meth use). The court revoked the CTP placement and reinstated the remaining DOC term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court exceeded authority/denied due process in revoking CTP placement | State: trial court had authority and provided required process | Tanksley: revocation should have proceeded via MCCC internal hearing; court lacked authority | Court: trial court had continuing jurisdiction and statutory authority; due process satisfied (notice, counsel, hearing rights) |
| Whether court abused discretion/denied due process in applying zero-tolerance policy and revoking placement | State: court’s policy is valid exercise of sentencing discretion; violation justified revocation | Tanksley: policy harsh and revocation was an abuse given his progress | Court: no abuse of discretion; policy within sentencing discretion and single violation sufficient to revoke |
| Whether revocation and reinstatement constituted double jeopardy | State: revocation is civil, not criminal; double jeopardy inapplicable | Tanksley: revocation punishes same offense twice | Court: revocation proceedings are civil/preponderance standard; double jeopardy protection does not apply |
| Procedural sufficiency of evidence for violation | State: admission and positive tests prove violation by preponderance | Tanksley: disputed meth evidence; argued isolated incident and acceptance of responsibility | Court: evidence and admissions met preponderance standard; factual violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (placement in community corrections is a favor, not a right; review like probation revocation)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (due process for revocation hearings is flexible; courts may enforce orders and protect public safety)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for revocation decisions)
- Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (when probationer admits violation, full evidentiary hearing is unnecessary; proceed to disposition)
- Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1992) (due process for revocation requires notice, disclosure, opportunity to be heard, confrontation, and neutral hearing body)
- Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (violation of a single condition is sufficient to revoke placement)
- Montgomery v. State, 58 N.E.3d 279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (trial court has continuing jurisdiction to modify or revoke probation/community placement)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (community supervision is a conditional liberty; not an entitlement)
- Madden v. State, 25 N.E.3d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (providing a hearing cures due process claim regarding lack of prior internal hearing)