Larenda Jones v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 96
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jones pleaded guilty to battery against a public safety official and was sentenced to three years: two years on home detention/community corrections and one year suspended to probation.
- After an earlier violation, Jones was moved from home detention to work release at Craine House; later alleged to have violated work release by physical and verbal altercations.
- At the revocation hearing Jones testified that she had not been taking prescribed mental-health medication and disputed the severity of the incidents.
- The trial court found a violation, revoked her community-corrections placement, and ordered her to serve two years in the DOC with one year suspended to probation.
- When Jones attempted to speak about the impact of incarceration (loss of ability to parent), the trial court curtailed her and said her "time is up." The court did not give an exact release date, saying DOC would provide projected release information.
- Jones appealed, arguing the court erred by not informing her of release dates and by denying her right of allocution; the appellate court reversed as to allocution and remanded for a new opportunity to speak, but upheld on release-date issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court was required to inform Jones of earliest and maximum release dates at revocation | Jones: I.C. § 35-38-1-1(b) requires advising defendant of earliest and maximum release dates when sentence is pronounced | State: Statute applies when court pronounces initial sentence, not at probation/community-corrections revocation | Rejected: statute applies to initial sentencing only; court need not provide release date at revocation (Vicory controlling) |
| Whether the trial court denied Jones the right of allocution at revocation | Jones: She requested to speak about why incarceration would harm her parenting and should be allowed to allocute | State: Jones already testified at hearing; that testimony satisfied any need for allocution | Reversed: Once Jones asked to speak, due process required permitting allocution; denial warrants remand for full opportunity to speak |
Key Cases Cited
- Vicory v. State, 802 N.E.2d 426 (Ind. 2004) (probation-revocation proceedings are not initial "pronouncement of sentence," but allocution should be allowed when defendant requests it)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (even on "strict compliance," defendant must be allowed to explain why probation should not be revoked)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (due-process protections for probation revocation extend to community corrections revocation)
- Owens v. State, 69 N.E.3d 531 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (denying defendant and counsel a chance to speak before sentencing can constitute a clear denial of due process)
- Minton v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1177 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (discussing the narrow purpose of allocution to show legal grounds for avoidance or delay of sentence)