Keith Jenkins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
82A01-1512-CR-2152
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2016Background
- Keith Jenkins was convicted in 2001 of two Class A felony counts for dealing cocaine; originally sentenced to concurrent 45-year executed terms with 5 years probation.
- In April 2013 the trial court reduced his executed term to ~24.6 years (resulting in release May 3, 2013) but retained five years of probation as a condition of the modification.
- Jenkins, monitored by Missouri probation, was permitted to travel to Evansville for medical appointments; he suffers from serious heart disease and is a transplant candidate.
- On December 11, 2014, Jenkins went to a residence under police surveillance; detectives saw him carry a dark duffel bag into the home and five minutes later executed a search finding the duffel contained over ten pounds of marijuana, scales, and baggies. Jenkins was charged with Level 5 felony dealing in marijuana.
- The State filed a petition to revoke probation; Jenkins was placed on home detention pending resolution. After a hung jury at the criminal trial, a probation revocation hearing was held and the trial court found by a preponderance that Jenkins committed a new crime, revoked probation, and ordered him to serve the remaining five years in the DOC. The court granted limited jail-credit but denied credit for home detention time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke probation | State: probation may be revoked on preponderance showing of new crime; evidence (duffel with >10 lbs marijuana) supports revocation | Jenkins: evidence at revocation hearing included undisclosed/new testimony (wheeled suitcase) and was insufficient | Court: Evidence (duffel, timing, task force surveillance) suffices to revoke by preponderance; possible suitcase testimony waived by failure to timely object |
| Due process / undisclosed evidence at revocation hearing | State: revocation procedures met; no contemporaneous objection; waiver | Jenkins: late objection that new evidence (suitcase) was introduced, violating disclosure | Court: Jenkins waived claim by not contemporaneously objecting and did not identify specific prejudice; even excluding suitcase evidence revocation still supported |
| Whether ordering DOC for remaining 5 years was abuse of discretion given health | Jenkins: serious medical condition merits leniency / not sending to DOC | State: trial court has discretion and previously showed leniency by modifying sentence; violation warranted incarceration | Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court’s original leniency was grace, and Jenkins violated probation by transporting a duffel with drugs during a medical trip |
| Credit for time on home detention pending revocation | Jenkins: home detention time should earn time-served and good-time credit | State: home detention as condition of release pending revocation is not confinement under pre-July-2014 statute | Court: Under controlling precedent, home detention while awaiting revocation resolution does not entitle defendant to credit time; trial court properly denied credit |
Key Cases Cited
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review and two-step probation revocation framework)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (due process protections in probation revocation)
- Marsh v. State, 818 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (failure to contemporaneously object to evidence at revocation waives claim)
- Lampley v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (probation may be revoked on preponderance showing of new crime)
- Thornton v. State, 792 N.E.2d 94 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (probation can be revoked for a new crime even if defendant was acquitted at trial)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (deference to trial court sentencing decisions after revocation)
- Senn v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (no credit for home detention used as condition of release pending revocation)
- Purcell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. 1999) (distinguishing confinement from home detention)
- Howard v. State, 32 N.E.3d 1187 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (appellate briefing standards; require specificity in objections)
- Harding v. State, 27 N.E.3d 330 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (credit time is statutory right; trial courts lack discretion to deny when statute applies)