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.

FILED
Oct 20 2009, 9:12 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MATTHEW G. GRANTHAM Bowers, Brewer, Garrett & Wiley, LLP Huntington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANGELA N. SANCHEZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICHAEL B. KERN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 35A02-0904-CR-304

APPEAL FROM THE HUNTINGTON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Thomas M. Hakes, Judge Cause No. CR-78-69

October 20, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAILEY, Judge

Case Summary Michael B. Kern ("Kern") appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm. Issue Kern presents the issue of whether the probation revocation was improper because there is a lack of evidence that he was subject to probationary obligations. Facts and Procedural History On December 10, 1979, Kern received a fifty-year executed sentence following his conviction of Burglary, as a Class A felony.1 On October 1, 1990, the trial court modified Kern's sentence by suspending twenty years, five of which were to be served on probation. In 2001, Kern's probation was revoked because he committed a new offense, child molesting. The trial court ordered that Kern be imprisoned for four years of the previouslysuspended sentence and be on probation for fifteen years thereafter. On January 5, 2007, the State filed a petition to revoke Kern's probation, alleging that he had been arrested for failure to register as a sex offender. Kern subsequently pled guilty to the crime of failing to register as a sex offender. On March 26, 2007, the trial court conducted a hearing on the petition for probation revocation. At that hearing, the State requested the reinstatement of Kern's suspended sentence in its entirety, while Kern argued for a one-year period of imprisonment followed by probation. The trial court ordered that one and one-half years of Kern's previously-suspended sentence be executed and observed "he will then [be] on probation with all the rules and all the responsibilities." (Tr. 33.) The

1

Ind. Code

Download Michael B. Kern v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law