Leroy Butler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
73A01-1609-CR-2238
Ind. Ct. App.Apr 7, 2017Background
- Leroy Butler was convicted of dealing in methamphetamine and maintaining a common nuisance after an August 2015 arrest; possession and dealing were merged at sentencing.
- At sentencing the trial court imposed an 18-year executed prison term with 2 years suspended to probation; Butler acknowledged a substance-abuse history beginning with alcohol use.
- Probation conditions included: no alcohol consumption and a ban on visiting “a bar, tavern, any place where alcoholic beverages are sold, bartered, or given away.”
- Butler appealed, arguing the probation condition barring entry to any place alcohol is sold is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
- The State conceded that narrowing the condition would be an appropriate remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation condition barring entry to any place alcohol is sold is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad | Condition is reasonably related to rehabilitation/public safety and within court's discretion | Condition is overbroad and would bar access to ordinary businesses (grocery, convenience, drug stores); thus vague/overbroad | Court: condition is overbroad as written; remand to narrow it so Butler may be barred from places where alcohol is sold by the drink or where the business's primary purpose is on-premises alcohol sales; prohibition on consumption may remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Bratcher v. State, 999 N.E.2d 864 (2013) (probation conditions must relate to rehabilitation and public safety)
- Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109 (2009) (trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions)
- Patton v. State, 990 N.E.2d 511 (2013) (standard for reviewing challenged probation conditions and factors to balance)
- McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (2007) (framework for balancing probationers’ rights against supervision needs)
- Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (2009) (probation restriction broad enough to bar visiting ordinary retailers is unfairly broad and requires clarification)
- Waters v. State, 65 N.E.3d 613 (2016) (probation conditions must be narrowly tailored to rehabilitation while protecting the public)