Shaun Pierce v. State of Indiana
44 N.E.3d 752
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Pierce pleaded guilty in 2010 to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, with six years suspended to probation and started probation on October 8, 2013.
- On October 8, 2014, four individuals, including Pierce, were seen loading tin from Brent Ferree’s property onto a truck, and fled when confronted by police.
- Police later apprehended Pierce; the Ferrees reported a theft in progress and identified Pierce as involved.
- On October 16, 2014, the State filed a Petition to Revoke Suspended Sentence alleging violation of probation by theft and trespass.
- An evidentiary hearing was held January 27, 2015, at which the court found the violations and revoked probation, ordering five years of the previously suspended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Pierce commit a probation violation by trespass and theft? | State contends Pierce knowingly interfered with Ferree's property and exercised unauthorized control over Ferree's property to deprive use or value. | Pierce argues insufficiency and credibility concerns, challenging the evidence linking him to the offenses. | Yes; the evidence showed trespass and theft by Pierce and supported probation revocation. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to revoke probation under preponderance standard? | State asserts evidence meets preponderance for a violation independent of a new conviction. | Pierce contends the evidence is insufficient or uncredible. | Yes; the State met the preponderance standard, validating revocation. |
| Was the theft allegation adequate notice and properly proven despite lack of exhibit? | State maintains the petition provided adequate notice of theft and accompanying facts. | Pierce claims issues like non-admission of the tin and witness credibility undermine proof. | Yes; adequate notice and proof by witness testimony and circumstantial evidence supported the finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (probation is discretionary; abuse of discretion standard for revocation)
- Morgan v. State, 691 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (weighing of evidence and credibility left to trial court)
- Richeson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (new-crime evidence allows revocation without new conviction)
- Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (one violation suffices to revoke probation if supported by substantial evidence)
- Gleason v. State, 634 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (due process rights in probation revocation include notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (standard for sufficiency in probation violation proceedings)