Court Opinion

ID: 9782576
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:58:22.894081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:05.900387
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s imposition of a twelve year sentence after revoking Jenkins’ probation.
The premise underwritten by the majority to determine that Jenkins violated his probation to pay court costs builds upon Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 617 (Ind.2010), where our supreme court described the parties’ respective evidentiary burdens with respect to allegations of failure to pay financial obligations in probation revocation cases. The Runyon court clarified that the State carries the burden to establish that the failure to pay was reckless, knowing, or intentional. Id. As satisfaction of this burden, the majority points to Jenkins’ employment history, his ability to set up child support, and his opportunity to return to a position earning a regular paycheck. See Op. pp. 149-50. I disagree that this evidence establishes that his failure to pay was reckless, knowing, or intentional. Rather, without any evidence as to Jenkins’ expenses or other obligations, this evidence merely indicates that Jenkins is employed and might have disposable income to pay his court costs and fees.
Jenkins’ second admission of probation violation — that he failed to timely report to probation — amounts to a technical rule violation which should not, standing alone, result in a revocation of probation. Based on this evidence, I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Jenkins’ probation.
Moreover, even if there was sufficient evidence to support Jenkins’ probation revocation, the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Jenkins to serve twelve years. Probation is a conditional liberty dependent upon the observance of certain restrictions. These restrictions are designed to ensure that the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not harmed by a probationer being at large. Carswell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). The evidence reflects that upon his release from prison, Jenkins was able to find and maintain employment, which, in turn allowed him to set up child support payments for his child. Returning him to the Indiana Department of Correction for twelve years, not only punishes Jenkins for improving his life while he was on probation, but also penalizes his child who is relying on the support payments. Furthermore, indiscriminately sending him to the DOC for failing to pay some minimal court fees and costs without taking into account his undeniable rehabilitation, his employment status, and the contributions to his child’s life, will bring us onto the slippery slope of a debtor’s prison. I would remand to the trial court with instructions to impose an alternative sentence.