Wooten v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 484
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Wooten was charged in 2003 with possession of cocaine (Class B felony), possession of marijuana (Class A misdemeanor), and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor).
- He pled guilty to cocaine possession and resisting law enforcement on February 19, 2004, and was sentenced to ten years with six executed, four suspended, and two suspended years to be served on formal probation.
- Wooten began HOCCS home detention, but HOCCS later alleged violations; the court ordered strict compliance in August 2004.
- In 2006, HOCCS filed a new violation related to a new criminal charge; Wooten pleaded guilty and agreed to have his HOCCS placement revoked and to serve the remainder of the executed sentence at DOC, to be served consecutively; the court stated there would be probation after the executed sentence.
- The 2006 amended abstract of judgment showed six years executed with no time suspended; Wooten was released to the DOC on October 18, 2006.
- In 2007 the court ordered Wooten released to a community transition program, and in 2009 he was released from parole; his probation officer was not notified until December 16, 2009, after which Wooten agreed to register with probation.
- On January 14, 2010, the trial court held a probation-violation hearing arising from Hendricks County charges; the court found a violation for engaging in new criminal conduct and ordered two years to be served at DOC.
- The trial court did not inform Wooten of his right to appeal the probation-revocation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Post-Conviction Rule 2 permits a belated appeal from probation revocation. | Wooten argues Rule 2 allows belated appeals from probation revocation. | State contends Rule 2 does not authorize belated appeals from probation revocation. | Rule 2 does not authorize belated appeals from probation revocation. |
| Whether the court should exercise inherent authority to review matters of great public importance. | Wooten requests review under inherent authority due to public-interest concerns. | State asserts no extraordinary public-interest warrant exists. | Court declines inherent-authority review; lacks extraordinary public-interest showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dawson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 841 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that Rule 2 belated-appeal authority does not extend to probation revocation)
- Glover v. State, 684 N.E.2d 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (probation revocation belated-appeal limits under Rule 2)
- Howard v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1389 (Ind. 1995) (strictly construes Rule 2; belated appeal from probation revocation not authorized)
- Greer v. State, 685 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. 1997) (interprets Rule 2's reach; belated appeal of probation revocation outside Rule 2)
- Cooper v. State, 894 N.E.2d 993 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discussion of belated-appeal viability in probation context (trans. granted))
- Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. 2008) (probation-revocation actions are not criminal sentences for direct-appeal rules)
- Becker v. State, 719 N.E.2d 858 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (resentencing belated-appeal context distinguished from probation revocation)
- Riffe v. State, 675 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (de novo resentencing distinguished from probation revocation context)
- Newton v. State, 894 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. 2008) (Rule 2 lacks authority where there is no direct appeal on conviction or sentence)