Tyrone D. Payton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
22A01-1605-CR-980
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2016Background
- Payton pled guilty in 2006 to Class B felony conspiracy to commit burglary and received a 10-year sentence with 5 years suspended to probation.
- Between 2008 and 2015, the probation department filed multiple violation notices; Payton stipulated to violations in 2011 and 2014 and received extensions and placement in an intensive probation program.
- In 2015 the probation department alleged additional violations: failures to report, use of illegal drugs (admissions of marijuana and opioids), failure to attend treatment (LifeSprings), unpaid fees, and new criminal charges arising in July 2015.
- At the revocation hearing Payton admitted drug use, missed appointments, and his arrest on new charges; the State introduced charging papers/affidavit for the new offenses (admitted only to show an arrest).
- The trial court found Payton violated probation (missed appointments, drug use, failure to attend LifeSprings, charged with new crimes), revoked probation, and ordered execution of four years of the previously suspended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Payton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly revoked probation | Evidence (including charging papers) showed probation violations warranting revocation | Admission of charging papers was hearsay/not certified, so revocation was improper | Affirmed: revocation proper — even if charging papers erred, other uncontested violations supported revocation |
| Whether imposition of 4 years of suspended sentence was proper | Court may execute suspended sentence after revocation; 4 years appropriate given repeated violations | Without consideration of new arrest, 4-year execution was excessive | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion given repeated violations and prior leniency |
Key Cases Cited
- Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (State must prove probation violation by a preponderance)
- Lamply v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (revocation lies within trial court discretion)
- Rudisel v. State, 31 N.E.3d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (substantial evidence of probative value required to affirm revocation)
- Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (a single probation violation can support revocation)
- Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (failure to timely report may alone support revocation)
- Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (rules of evidence, including hearsay, do not generally apply in probation revocation proceedings)
- Smith v. State, 971 N.E.2d 86 (Ind. 2012) (hearsay may be admitted in revocation proceedings if substantially trustworthy)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (same principle regarding hearsay and due process in revocation)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing after revocation)