Source: https://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=18A-CR-2154%20&s=IN&d=128303
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:39:14+00:00

Document:
Judge: Robert R. Altice, Jr.
injury before Thompson was secured.
That the defendant is in violation of the order of the Court, by knowingly failing to appear to sign up for probation.
station. Police approached him and told him that he had outstanding warrants.
eventually crashed into an officer’s vehicle.
and admitted to being an habitual offender.
STATE: Uh yes sir there’s as preliminary matter Judge[.] I was looking through my notes and the docket, um, there was a [petition to revoke] that was filed in [Cause]1458, and according to my notes and I didn’t see it on the docket in that case I don’t know that the Defendant actually ever admitted the PTR, um, and I couldn’t find – or I couldn’t find where he had and I just wanted to point that out to the Court preliminarily before the sentencing hearing begins.
COURT: Yeah his plea of guilty [in Cause 3019] is an admission that he’s violated the terms and condition of that sentence [in Cause 1458] as he was serving that sentence when this incident occurred so.
1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986).
COURT: I don’t need a formal admission.
Transcript Vol. II at 18.
missed his probation meeting, which he stated was due to his car not working.
Court on a petition to revoke after turning himself in at probation.” Id. at 42.
complete compliance until the day this happened.” Id.
3019, to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of eleven years.
in [Cause 3019].” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 99.
No the record – well you have eight prior felonies, you were on probation at the time you did this, you have a pattern. I do agree that there’s a number of resisting convictions in the past, you’ve had a robbery conviction and other serious felons – felonies so no I can’t anymore. We’ve gone as far as we’re going to go.
THOMPSON: I did – none of the other stuff count as mitigating factors about how I didn’t get in any trouble and I did everything no failed drug tests, none of that counts or matters?
COURT: . . . I took into account those and on those occasions when you – your behavior was – was what the law required you got credit for that, but here – this situation could have turned dangerous and violent very, very easily. Somebody could have been seriously hurt this is not acceptable.
appointed counsel to perfect an appeal.
cause numbers, which this court later consolidated upon Thompson’s motion.
defendant is entitled. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
judgment, and do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.
(emphasis added); Gilreath v. State, 748 N.E.2d 919, 921 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
probationers at revocation hearings. J.H. v. State, 857 N.E.2d 429, 432 (Ind. Ct.
(Ind. Ct. App. 1997); see also Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (Ind.
grounds upon which revocation is being sought).
Notice of Violation of Probation); Long v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1238, 1240 (Ind. Ct.
court identified other violations that were included in the petition).
“failing to appear to sign up for probation.” Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 79.
alleged as a violation of probation. Id. at 99.
the charged violation for which Thompson had received notice in the petition.
missing a scheduled probation meeting, a finding not made by the trial court.
are improper as a matter of law. Id. at 490-91.
2 We note that, if the trial court had based revocation on both (1) the missed meeting and (2) commission of a new offense, then the court’s reliance on the new offense would have been harmless. See Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct App. 2005) (stating that it was error for trial court to make findings about violations that defendant had not received notice for purpose of the revocation hearing, but holding that error was harmless because defendant was also found to have violated probation on another basis, having ingested methamphetamine, for which he had received notice), trans. denied; Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 622 (finding that one of four bases identified by trial court to revoke probation was not set out in the petition for revocation and that it was error for trial court to rely on that basis, but holding that error was harmless because other bases were included in the petition). However, such is not the case here, as the trial court, in revoking Thompson’s probation, relied only on the fact that he had committed a new offense.
factors, if any are found, and explains why the court has found them to be such.
sentencing and to provide an adequate basis for appellate review.” Webb v.
v. State, 965 N.E.2d 702, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
order, or during the oral pronouncement of sentence[.]” Appellant’s Brief at 18.
dealing in marijuana, and Level 4 felony for dealing in a narcotic drug.
circumstances that it had considered when determining Thompson’s sentence.
trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Thompson in Cause 3019.
Outcome: Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.