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. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
May 26 2010, 8:54 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ANTHONY S. CHURCHWARD Deputy Public Defender Fort Wayne, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. PATRICK J. DAVIS, Appellee-Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 02A05-1001-CR-7

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Robert J. Schmoll, Magistrate Cause No. 02D04-0403-FB-45

May 26, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Chief Judge

The State of Indiana appeals the trial court's order dismissing the State's petition to revoke appellee-defendant Patrick J. Davis's probation. The trial court concluded that because there was no evidence that Davis had been advised of the terms of probation, revocation was improper. The State contends that a defendant need not specifically be advised of the automatic term of probation prohibiting the commission of a new offense. Finding that it need not be established that the defendant was explicitly advised that he is prohibited from committing new offenses while on probation, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. FACTS On April 12, 2005, Davis pleaded guilty to two counts of class B felony criminal confinement. The trial court later sentenced Davis to concurrent twenty-year terms on each conviction, with ten years executed and ten years suspended to probation. Davis's ten-year term of probation began on April 25, 2009. On July 1, 2009, the State filed a petition to revoke Davis's probation because he had been convicted of class A misdemeanor unauthorized absence from home detention on May 2, 2009. The trial court held a hearing on August 12, 2009, after which it dismissed the petition, finding that nothing in the record established that Davis had been informed of the terms of his probation. The State now appeals.

2

DISCUSSION AND DECISION We review the trial court's decision on a petition to revoke a defendant's probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). As a general rule, a defendant must be advised of his probation terms. Ind. Code

Download State of Indiana v. Patrick J. Davis.pdf

Indiana Law