Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: CHRISTOPHER A. RAMSEY Ramsey Law Office Vincennes, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MARJORIE LAWYER-SMITH Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH V. HAAS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 42A05-0707-CR-376

APPEAL FROM THE KNOX SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable W. Timothy Crowley, Judge Cause No. 42D01-9410-CF-75

October 16, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Appellant-Defendant Joseph V. Haas ("Haas") appeals the trial court's order that he serve his previously suspended sentence. We affirm. Issue Haas raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as whether Haas received adequate notice of the State's allegation that he violated the terms of his probation. 1 Facts and Procedural History Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court entered a judgment of a conviction against Haas for Burglary as a Class B felony, 2 and on August 23, 1995, the trial court sentenced Haas. On May 31, 2006, Haas filed an Agreed Modification of Sentence. On June 15, 2006, the trial court ordered Haas to be placed in the Wabash Valley Community Corrections Work Release Program until December 12, 2006, after which he would be placed on supervised probation until June 6, 2007. On January 25, 2007, Haas was arrested. The next day, the State filed a Notice of Probation Violation alleging Haas violated his probation by "[b]eing arrested in Knox County, Indiana on January 25, 2007 for Trespassing, Possession of Paraphernalia and Possession of Methamphetamine." Appellant's Appendix at 4. The notice further indicated the "intention of the Probation Department to recommend that [Haas]'s suspended sentence be revoked." Id. A probation revocation hearing was held on February 15, 2007, at which the State
1

Haas does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him.

2

called the two police officers present at the arrest as well as Haas's probation officer. The trial court found that Haas violated the terms of his probation and sentenced him to serve 183 days at the Indiana Department of Correction with credit for 21 days served. Haas now appeals. Discussion and Decision Probation is a conditional liberty, and "the granting of a conditional liberty is a favor and not a right." Gardner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 398, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature; therefore, a violation need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). "A trial court may revoke a person's probation upon evidence of the violation of any single term of probation." Id. In this case, Haas asserts the Notice of Probation Violation was insufficient and violated his Due Process rights. "The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by probation." Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 269 (Ind. 1995). "Among the due process rights to be accorded a probationer is written notice of the claimed probation violations." Id. Haas asserts his Notice was insufficient because it merely alleged that he was arrested. He cites England v. State, 670 N.E.2d 104, 105 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied, as the basis of his argument. 3 In England, the defendant was not provided any written notice that

Ind. Code

Download Joseph V. Haas v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law