Robert E. Inman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
84A04-1607-CR-1650
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 27, 2017Background
- Inman pleaded guilty to two Level 6 felony OWI-with-prior counts (separate incidents) and entered a drug-court program; judgments were withheld and pleas would be withdrawn if he completed the program.
- The State alleged violations of the drug-court program; Inman admitted violating the program in December 2015 and the court entered judgments of conviction in January 2016.
- The trial court sentenced Inman to 2.5 years in each case, ordered the sentences to be served consecutively, but suspended them to probation except for 180 days on home detention; conditions included drug and alcohol monitoring.
- The State subsequently petitioned to revoke probation/home detention, alleging missed alcohol screens and positive alcohol tests; community corrections coordinator Zurcher testified about the missed tests and positives and that Inman signed Home Detention Rule 4.
- After an evidentiary hearing the trial court found violations (missed tests on May 4 and May 11; positive alcohol tests on March 30, April 18, April 26), revoked probation and ordered Inman to serve the previously-suspended consecutive sentences in the Department of Correction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for probation revocation | State: testimony and chain of events show Inman violated Home Detention Rule 4 (missed screens and positive alcohol tests) | Inman: State failed to introduce Rule 4 or written probation terms into evidence, so no proof of violation | Court: Testimony about conditions and violations (unobjected) was sufficient by preponderance; revocation affirmed |
| Sentencing — execution of suspended sentences consecutively | State: trial court acted within discretion given Inman’s criminal history and probation violations | Inman: court should have imposed a reduced sanction or time served instead of full consecutive executed sentences | Court: No abuse of discretion; given prior record, drug-court failure, and further violations, executing full consecutive suspended sentences was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (placement in community corrections is within trial court’s discretion)
- Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (State must prove probation violation by preponderance)
- Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 2012) (review evidence in favor of trial court; no reweighing credibility)
- Bass v. State, 974 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (revocation of community corrections placement reviewed like probation revocation)
- Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (one probation violation suffices to revoke)
- Johnson v. State, 692 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (failure to object to other evidence proving probation conditions waives claim that written terms were required in evidence)
- Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing on probation violations)
- Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing review)
- Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (ordering full execution of suspended sentence not an abuse where defendant relapsed despite attempts at improvement)