212 So. 3d 1177
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Jackson pleaded guilty to second-degree battery on Oct 23, 2015; sentence of three years was suspended and she was placed on three years active probation.
- On March 10, 2016, police arrested Jackson after a hotel-resident reported theft of a phone, credit cards, and wristwatches; two women (one identified as Destiny Bernard) were involved.
- Officers recovered a watch from Bernard (valued $200) and a watch from Jackson (valued $100); the phone (valued $600) was not recovered.
- At the revocation hearing Jackson claimed the roommate "Dan" gave her the watch and said she left the hotel because she was uncomfortable; she admitted accompanying the victims earlier that night but denied theft.
- The district court found probable cause to arrest for felony theft, concluded Jackson committed a felony while on probation for a violent crime, and revoked probation; Jackson’s motion to reconsider was denied and she sought review by writ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation revocation was supported by sufficient evidence | State: hearsay from arresting officer corroborated by officer observations and recovered property; district court properly found felony conduct | Jackson: State relied on hearsay (victim statements via officer); she wasn’t convicted and offered innocent explanation for possession | Held: Evidence (admissions + recovered watch + officer observations) was sufficient; no abuse of discretion in revocation |
| Whether hearsay testimony violated due process rights at revocation | State: hearsay admissible in revocation context and defendant was allowed to cross-examine the officer | Jackson: Reliance on unsworn, intoxicated victim’s statements made evidence unreliable | Held: Hearsay corroborated and defendant’s testimony largely confirmed facts; due process concerns not triggered to overturn revocation |
| Whether misdemeanor/uncharged conduct can support revocation | Jackson: Cites authority suggesting misdemeanor might be insufficient | State: Even if misdemeanor, prior Louisiana Supreme Court law allows revocation for criminal conduct; here court found felony conduct | Held: Dorest was reversed by Louisiana Supreme Court; revocation may be based on misdemeanor or felony conduct; court found felony anyway |
| Whether court failed to consider mitigating factors or probation officer’s recommendation | Jackson: Court ignored mitigation and PO recommendation | State: Record shows judge stated basis for revocation; defendant did not call PO or submit PO report at hearing | Held: Oral reasons on the record were adequate; no requirement shown that PO testimony/documentation was offered or considered further |
Key Cases Cited
- Manuel v. State, 349 So.2d 882 (La. 1977) (procedural rule converting appeal from probation revocation to writ application)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (due process framework for parole revocation hearings; limited confrontation/cross-examination rights)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (Morrissey framework applies to probation revocation)
- State v. Rideau, 376 So.2d 1251 (La. 1979) (trial court’s wide discretion in sanctions for probation violations)
- State v. Dorest, 805 So.2d 132 (La. 2002) (Louisiana Supreme Court reversed lower ruling; criminal conduct, including misdemeanors, can support revocation)
- State v. Harris, 368 So.2d 1066 (La. 1979) (oral statement of reasons for revocation can provide adequate basis for review)