Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 1 of 10

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Richard Walker

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Tachanavian Miles,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 22, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2813

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David A. Happe, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48D04-1007-FD-239

Darden, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 2 of 10

Statement of the Case

[1] Tachanavian Miles appeals the trial court’s finding that she violated the terms 

of her probation. We affirm.

Issue

[2] Miles presents a single issue for our review, which we restate as: whether the 

trial court erred by admitting certain evidence at Miles’ probation revocation 

hearing.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In July 2010, the State charged Miles with operating a motor vehicle while 

intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor;

1

driving while suspended, a Class A 

misdemeanor;2and operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D 

felony.3 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Miles pleaded guilty to the Class D 

felony offense in September 2010. Sentencing was set for November 9, 2010, at 

which time the parties appeared, and the court found Miles in contempt for 

failing to report for her pre-sentence interview with the probation department. 

The court deferred sanctions for the contempt and reset sentencing for 

December 14. On that date, the court sentenced Miles to twenty-four months

 

1

Ind. Code § 9-30-5-2 (2001).

2

Ind. Code § 9-24-19-2 (2000).

3

Ind. Code § 9-30-5-3 (2008).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 3 of 10

on the Class D felony. The court suspended the sentence except for five days 

and further ordered that, in lieu of jail time, Miles would perform 144 hours of 

community service. Miles was also ordered to serve 729 days of probation, and 

the sentence in this cause was ordered to be served consecutively to her

sentence in cause 48D04-0910-FD-409. The State dismissed the remaining 

charges, and the court imposed no sanction on the prior contempt finding.

[4] In December 2011, a notice of probation violation was filed against Miles

alleging that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probation by 

failing to report timely to the probation department, failing to complete 144 

hours of community service and provide written verification of such, failing to 

pay probation fees, failing to pay the administrative fee, failing to maintain 

employment and/or verify employment, and failing to complete the victim 

offender encounter group. Miles failed to appear for the initial hearing on

January 13, 2012, regarding the notice of probation violation, and the court 

issued a warrant for her arrest. Subsequently, in May 2015, Miles was arrested 

on the outstanding warrant. In June 2015, the court held a hearing on her 

failure to appear as well as an initial hearing on the notice of probation 

violation. The court found Miles in contempt for her failure to appear and 

sanctioned her to thirty days with no credit given. Miles entered a denial to the 

probation violation.

[5] Later in June 2015, the court held an evidentiary hearing on the alleged 

violations of probation, and Miles admitted the allegations contained in the 

notice of probation violation. The court found Miles had violated the terms 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 4 of 10

and conditions of her probation and ordered her probationary period modified 

to include successful completion of the Continuum of Sanctions program in

cause FD-409. The court further ordered Miles to disclose all prescription 

medications to the probation department within forty-eight hours and ordered 

her not to operate a motor vehicle under any circumstances.

[6] A second notice of probation violation was filed in May 2017. In this instance, 

the State alleged that Miles had violated the terms and conditions of her 

probation by failing to report timely to probation and not reporting since March

2017; failing to obtain a substance abuse evaluation, comply with treatment 

recommendations, and provide verification of successful completion of the 

treatment program to the probation department; failing to maintain 

employment and/or verify employment; and failing to abide by curfew. Upon 

the recommendation of the probation department, a warrant was issued for 

Miles’ arrest. In May 2018, the State filed an amended notice of probation 

violation to include the allegation of failure to abide by the laws of the State of 

Indiana and behave well in society. Specifically, the State alleged Miles had 

committed several new criminal offenses consisting of two counts of aiding, 

inducing, or causing robbery resulting in bodily injury, as Level 3 felonies.

[7] Miles was later arrested on the outstanding warrant in October 2018. At the 

initial hearing on the amended notice of probation violation, she entered a 

denial to the allegations, and the court scheduled an evidentiary hearing for

November 2018.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 5 of 10

[8] At the evidentiary hearing, Detective Mitch Carroll with the Anderson Police 

Department testified on behalf of the State. Detective Carroll testified about a 

July 2017 robbery investigation that involved Miles and about his interview of 

Joseph Elliott, the robbery victim. Miles objected on the basis of hearsay to the 

Detective’s testimony of Elliott’s statements. The court overruled the objection, 

stating: “The court will find based on the circumstances that this was an 

interview conducted by a known police officer regarding the facts of an alleged 

crime, that there are indicia of reliability that show that while this is hearsay it’s 

admissible hearsay in this probation violation proceedings [sic].” Tr. Vol. II, p. 

13.

[9] Thereafter, Detective Carroll testified that Elliott was dating Nicole Layman, 

and, on July 12, 2017, Layman and Miles were at Elliott’s apartment. The two 

women offered to purchase the Suboxone that Elliott had been prescribed, but 

Elliott declined the sale. Elliott then drove the two women, at Miles’ direction, 

to another residence in Anderson. Elliott pulled into the dimly lit driveway, 

and both women exited the car. Immediately, two men approached the car—

one on the driver’s side and one on the passenger side—and robbed Elliott at 

gunpoint, taking his billfold, the Suboxone, and his cell phone. Thirty-five 

minutes later, Miles was captured on surveillance video at a Super 8 Motel 

paying for a room with one of the credit cards from Elliott’s billfold. The 

Detective testified that there were also two online purchases, one of which was 

for $250 at a sporting goods retailer and the other was from a firearm dealer for 

a “laser sight and a large drum magazine for a Glock” that were to be delivered 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 6 of 10

to Miles’ grandparents’ residence. Tr. Vol. II, p. 16. The State then moved for 

admission of Exhibit 1, Detective Carroll’s probable cause affidavit in the 

robbery charges filed against Miles. Exhibit 1 was admitted without objection.

[10] The State next called Shantel Long, Miles’ probation officer, to testify. Long 

testified that Miles had been reporting to the probation department prior to 

March 2, 2017, but she had not reported since then. Miles began attending 

substance abuse treatment but had failed to complete it. In addition, Long 

testified that Miles reported that she was employed but had failed to provide 

verification of employment as requested. Finally, Long testified that a home 

visit was conducted after curfew on May 12, 2017, and Miles was not at her 

residence.

[11] Miles testified at the evidentiary hearing and admitted that she stopped 

reporting to her probation officer. She further stated that she completed

substance abuse treatment, although the probation office did not receive

documentation of such completion. Miles also stated that she was employed 

for a period of time but that she could not recall whether she had provided 

proof of her employment to the probation department. Finally, Miles testified 

she did not recall a home visit or any curfew violation. Miles presented no 

testimony regarding the new charges of robbery.

[12] Following the presentation of evidence and argument by counsel, the court 

determined that Miles had violated the terms and conditions of her probation as 

alleged in the notice of probation violation. The court revoked her probation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 7 of 10

and imposed the balance of her previously suspended sentence. Miles now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Miles contends the trial court erred by considering hearsay evidence in revoking 

her probation. 

[14] We begin by noting that probation is an alternative to imprisonment and is 

granted in the sole discretion of the trial court. Davis v. State, 743 N.E.2d 793,

794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans denied. A defendant is not entitled to serve a 

sentence on probation; rather, such placement is a matter of grace and a 

conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. 

[15] A probation revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and the 

State must prove an alleged violation only by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f) (2015); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2000). A revocation hearing involves a more narrow inquiry than 

criminal proceedings, and its procedures are to be more flexible. Cox v. State, 

706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind. 1999). This flexibility is necessary in order to permit 

the court to exercise its inherent power to enforce obedience to its lawful orders. 

Id. The decision to revoke a defendant’s probation is a matter within the sound 

discretion of the trial court. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). 

Thus, on appeal, we review the trial court’s decision for an abuse of that 

discretion. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 8 of 10

[16] Further, Indiana Rule of Evidence 101(d)(2) allows for the admission of 

evidence, such as hearsay, during probation revocation hearings that would not 

be permitted in a full-blown criminal trial. Yet, “[t]his does not mean that 

hearsay evidence may be admitted willy-nilly in a probation revocation 

hearing.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). In Reyes, our 

Supreme Court adopted the substantial trustworthiness test as the means for 

determining whether hearsay evidence should be admitted at a probation 

revocation hearing. In this test, the trial court must determine whether the 

evidence reaches a certain level of reliability—i.e., whether it has a substantial 

guarantee of trustworthiness—in order to be considered at a probation 

revocation hearing. 868 N.E.2d at 441.

[17] Here, Miles argues that the trial court erred by allowing Detective Carroll to 

testify as to Elliott’s statements regarding the robbery. She claims the evidence 

was not substantially trustworthy and should not have been admitted. 

[18] The record in this case indicates that Detective Carroll’s sworn testimony bore

substantial indicia of trustworthiness. Detective Carroll, a trained police 

officer, testified to the information he learned in the normal course of 

investigating a crime. The initial interview of the victim was a formal interview 

that was conducted at the police station and was recorded. A follow-up 

interview was later conducted at the victim’s home. In addition, Detective

Carroll testified about evidence discovered during the investigation of the crime 

that corroborated Elliott’s statements—namely, the video footage of Miles 

using Elliott’s credit card at a Super 8 Motel just thirty-five minutes after the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 9 of 10

robbery as well as her use of his credit card for online purchases that were 

scheduled to be delivered to the home of her grandparents. Thus, we cannot 

say the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Detective Carroll’s 

testimony.

[19] Nevertheless, even if the trial court did abuse its discretion in admitting the 

detective’s testimony, any error was harmless because State’s Exhibit 1 bore 

sufficient indicia of reliability to be considered substantially trustworthy. State’s 

Exhibit 1 is Detective Carroll’s probable cause affidavit for the robbery charges 

against Miles. This Court has held that a probable cause affidavit prepared and 

signed under oath by an officer bears substantial indicia of reliability. Whatley v. 

State, 847 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Here, Detective Carroll 

testified that Exhibit 1 is his affidavit, and it bears his signature as “AFFIANT.” 

See Ex. 1, Vol. III, pp. 4-5. Moreover, when the State moved for the admission 

of Exhibit 1 at the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated he had no 

objection. See Tr. Vol. II, p. 18. Therefore, any error stemming from the 

hearsay statements that were admitted through the detective’s testimony was 

harmless because the affidavit for probable cause, which contained the same 

information, bore sufficient indicia of reliability.

[20] Furthermore, Miles admitted to at least one of the alleged violations (failure to 

report), and “[p]roof of any one violation is sufficient to revoke a defendant’s 

probation.” Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting 

Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied). Finally, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2813 | October 22, 2019 Page 10 of 10

in addition, probation officer Long’s testimony was enough to support the 

court’s revocation of Miles’ probation.

Conclusion

[21] For the reasons stated, we conclude the trial court did not err by admitting the 

detective’s testimony at Miles’ probation revocation hearing.

[22] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.