Trevor L. Morgan v. State of Indiana
87 N.E.3d 506
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Trevor L. Morgan pled guilty in 2010 to Class A dealing in methamphetamine and Class C neglect of a dependent; aggregate sentence 20 years with 10 years suspended.
- In 2013 Morgan was placed in a community corrections/work‑release program; he subsequently committed multiple program violations.
- The community corrections director and program staff held administrative proceedings and recommended revocation; the director requested the trial court revoke Morgan’s placement.
- The trial court held an evidentiary revocation hearing where the State presented witnesses, Morgan cross‑examined and testified, and the court found the violations and revoked placement, ordering Morgan to serve the suspended portion in the DOC.
- Morgan appealed, arguing (1) Ind. Code § 35‑38‑2.6‑5 (2015) unconstitutionally delegates judicial power to the executive and (2) he was denied due process because the statute and his hearing did not provide a neutral evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded for any earned‑credit issues.
Issues
| Issue | Morgan's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delegation of judicial power | § 35‑38‑2.6‑5 allows community corrections director to make factfinding and alter placements, impermissibly usurping judicial sentencing authority | Director’s role is administrative; only the court can revoke placement or change sentence, so no usurpation occurred | No improper delegation; statute permits administration and recommendations but preserves judicial sentencing and revocation authority |
| Facial due process challenge (hearing requirement) | 2015 amendment removed statutory requirement that court hold a hearing before revocation, making the statute facially unconstitutional | Other statutes and caselaw still require a court hearing on a revocation petition; the amendment does not eliminate due process protections | Not facially unconstitutional; even if § 35‑38‑2.6‑5 omits a hearing textually, other statutes (and precedent) require a court hearing with usual revocation protections |
| As‑applied due process (neutral hearing) | Trial court merely deferred to administrative findings; hearing functioned as rubber stamp of administrative process, like Million v. State | Trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing in open court: written notice, evidence presented, cross‑examination, and neutral judge — not mere review of admin proceedings | No due process violation as‑applied; Morgan received required revocation hearing safeguards |
| Waiver / Fundamental error | Failure to object below is excused because alleged errors (delegation and due process) are fundamental | Morgan failed to object at trial, so issues are forfeited absent fundamental error; here no fundamental error occurred | Issues were forfeited absent a showing of fundamental error; court found no fundamental error and reviewed merits where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (standards on waiver and fundamental error)
- Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind. 2009) (definition of fundamental error and due process concerns)
- A.B. v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 2011) (separation‑of‑powers/coercive influence test)
- Lemmon v. Harris, 949 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 2011) (judiciary’s sentencing authority under separation of powers)
- Madden v. State, 25 N.E.3d 791 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (community corrections supervise probation terms; programs do not resentence)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (analogy of community corrections revocation to probation revocation procedure)
- Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1992) (due process requirements for revocation hearings: written notice, disclosure, right to present evidence, confrontation, neutral decisionmaker)
- Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (invalidated a proceeding that merely rubber‑stamped administrative findings without a neutral judicial hearing)