William Epperly v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
34A02-1604-CR-731
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 23, 2016Background
- William Epperly pled guilty to Level 6 felony residential entry and received a 30‑month sentence with 132 days executed and the remainder (780 days) suspended to supervised probation; condition included not committing further crimes.
- On Jan 20, 2016, officers responded to an accident where witnesses said the driver fled on foot; Epperly was located in a nearby trailer, appeared intoxicated, smelled of alcohol, staggered, and was identified at the scene by a witness.
- Epperly refused field sobriety tests; a blood draw was obtained by warrant at a hospital.
- The State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging OVWI causing bodily injury (Class A misdemeanor), resisting, leaving the scene with injury, lack of financial responsibility, and failing to notify his probation officer.
- At the revocation hearing the trial court found a probation violation and ordered Epperly to serve the suspended sentence (court entry incorrectly stated 781 days rather than 780) and credited him with a computed amount of time that both parties agreed was incorrect.
- Epperly appealed, challenging admission of certain hearsay, sufficiency of the evidence to revoke, and the calculation of remaining days/credit; the Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation but remanded to correct day counts and credit computation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Epperly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hearsay statements admitted at the revocation hearing were admissible | Hearsay was admissible in revocation proceedings if substantially trustworthy; officers’ testimony and affidavit establish reliability | Admission of multiple out‑of‑court statements was hearsay and unreliable; trial court failed to make on‑the‑record trustworthiness findings | Most hearsay objections waived for failure to object below; the one preserved hearsay statement was harmless error because cumulative of other admissible evidence; Officer Smith’s observations were not hearsay |
| Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove probation violation | Testimony of officers and an eyewitness identifying Epperly, plus evidence of intoxication, sufficed to prove by a preponderance that Epperly committed the alleged offenses | Evidence was largely hearsay and no BAC result was offered; reliance on probable cause affidavit (and other dismissed charges) made proof insufficient | Enough admissible evidence (officer observations and eyewitness ID) supported revocation; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
| Whether the trial court correctly computed remaining suspended days and jail credit | Agreed the trial court’s written order misstates days; argued credit should run from bench‑warrant arrest date | Argued credit should run from initial arrest (Jan 20) through revocation date | Court remanded to correct clerical errors: remaining suspended days should be 780 (not 781); credit limited to time imprisoned on the probation‑revocation arrest (Feb 2 to Mar 11) — 37 actual / 74 good time days |
Key Cases Cited
- McCauley v. State, 22 N.E.3d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (probation revocation proceedings are civil and allow more flexible evidentiary rules)
- Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (hearsay admissible in revocation hearings if shown substantially trustworthy)
- United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) (discussing on‑the‑record reliability findings for hearsay in certain proceedings)
- Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (probable cause affidavit alone insufficient to revoke when affidavit not independently corroborated)
- Whatley v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1007 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (investigating officer’s sworn affidavit can supply substantial reliability for probable cause statements)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is a matter of grace; revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)