Court Opinion

ID: 9744929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:23:52.68737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:53.431008
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
The trial court revoked Jones’ probation upon three discrete grounds: that he failed to maintain full time employment; that he failed to notify the Probation Department of employment; and that he committed batteries on two different occasions. In my view, only one of these bases is an arguably appropriate ground for revocation.
The evidence, without regard to the hearsay testified to by Officer Chamberlain, is minimally adequate to indicate that a simple battery took place on October 24, 1996. Brooks admitted that she and Jones “were rumbling around”, that they were pushing each other and that her shirt was torn when Jones grabbed her. Record at 120. From such evidence the probation revocation court might have reasonably concluded that on that date Jones committed battery as a Class B misdemeanor.2 There is no substantive evi-*763denee, however, that a battery took place on June 21,1996.3
The majority relies upon the fact that in Greer v. State (1997) Ind., 685 N.E.2d 700, our Supreme Court, upon transfer, vacated the earlier opinion by this court in Greer v. State (1996) Ind.App. 669 N.E.2d 751. The Supreme Court did in fact do so, but it held only that the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the belated appeal with respect to revocation of probation. In no respect did it criticize or comment upon the Court of Appeals’ reasoning that, notwithstanding Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c)(2), the specific evidentiary common law rule barring hearsay in probation revocation proceedings remains viable and in place in Indiana law. Payne v. State (1987) Ind.App., 515 N.E.2d 1141. In my view, although the holding of this court in Greer has been vacated, the rationale utilized with respect to hearsay vis a vis Rule 101 remains more persuasive than does the naked conclusion reached in Sutton v. State, Ind.App., 689 N.E.2d 452. In Sutton, the court concluded that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings solely because Ind. R. Evid. 101 states that the rules do not apply to “proceedings relating to ... probation”. The Sutton court did not consider whether there was a common law determination with regard to this specific evidentiary issue so as to “trump” the non-applicability language in Ind. R. Evid. 101(c)(2).4 I would, therefore, decline to follow Sutton, supra.
As to the matter of employment, Jones endeavored to, and did in fact, obtain employment as required by the terms of his probation. His first place of employment was closed down, and the job was terminated though no fault of Jones. He sought employment but was unsuccessful until following the fulfillment of a previously ordered ninety-day period of “day reporting” and home detention. The second job ended with his administrative layoff, again, though no fault of Jones. Such scenario does not reflect a conscious disregard for the condition of his probation and should not have constituted a basis for revocation.
The facts do disclose, however, that Jones failed to report his employment status. One might conclude that such failure, standing alone, should not constitute grounds for subjecting the probationer to two years executed time. To be sure, there are valid reasons, administrative and otherwise, why a probationer might be required to keep the Probation Department advised as to his current employment status. However, the sanction of probation revocation seems unduly harsh when it is imposed for mere failure to advise that the individual has, in good faith, complied with the directive of the court to obtain employment.
My research discloses no Indiana ease in which failure to report one’s employment status was held to constitute a valid basis for probation revocation. The only Indiana case even closely resembling the situation before us involved failure of the probationer to advise the court of his current address. In Buck v. State (1991) Ind.App., 580 N.E.2d 730, however, the probationer had not only moved to Florida without permission but had *764also departed after completing less than one-third of the community service hours ordered as a condition of probation. In Buck, therefore, the violation was, to a significant degree, more serious than is present here. Additional research has revealed only one case from another jurisdiction involving failure “to obtain regular employment” as the sole basis for probation revocation. In People v. Oskroba, (1953) 305 N.Y. 113, 111 N.E.2d 235, a majority of the New York Court of Appeals upheld the revocation solely upon the alleged employment condition violation. It did so, however, in light of other evidence of a violation of probation, which had not been alleged as a basis for the revocation and which, for that reason, was extraneous to the determination. Florida cases reflect a contrary view. As late as 1993, Florida law held that a probationer could not validly be ordered to maintain full-time employment and that such condition was “sufficiently egregious to constitute fundamental error.” White v. Florida (1993) Fla.App., 619 So.2d 429, 430. Subsequently, that principle was modified or clarified to reflect the reality that a given probationer might be unable to fulfill the condition purely because of economic conditions. Accordingly, the Florida courts approved a probation condition couched in terms to require either that the person “maintain or actively seek gainful employment” (emphasis supplied) or “work diligently at a lawful occupation and support any dependents to the best of your ability ” (emphasis supplied). Brown v. Florida (1996) Fla.App., 666 So.2d 240, 242.
Research discloses no reported decision from any jurisdiction in the United States holding valid a probation revocation solely upon failure to report employment status. Interestingly, only one case seems to have addressed the question. In Hawaii v. Quelnan (1989) 70 Haw. 194, 767 P.2d 243, the probationer was alleged to have misrepresented his employment status by originally advising the authorities that he was employed at a particular company as a taxi driver but failing to advise that reissuanee of his taxi driver’s license had been denied. The Supreme Court of Hawaii reversed the probation revocation stating:
“In our view, there is serious doubt as to whether Defendant inexcusably failed to comply with the change in employment status condition of probation (citation omitted). Arguably, but for Defendant’s failure to gain reissuance of his taxi driver’s license, Defendant would still be gainfully employed with Sida as a taxi driver. Based on the record, the sole reason Defendant was denied reissuance was due to his then pending gambling indictment, which was later dismissed.
Moreover, ... [the] record indicates that[,] after losing his taxi driver’s license, Defendant worked as an independent driver, then as a laborer with a roofing company, and[,] at the time of the hearing, as a manager at a local lounge.” Id., 767 P.2d at 247.
It appears, therefore, that establishment of a technical violation of a valid condition of probation will not necessarily permit a revocation of probation. In my estimation, such is the case before us.
Under the circumstances, I would remand to the probation revocation court with instructions to reconsider the matter and to disregard the employment related allegations of probation violation, and consider only whether the battery which may have taken place in October, 1996 was of sufficient gravity to call for execution of the entire remaining two years of the sentence.5

. To the extent that Officer Chamberlain testified that he observed "injuries” upon Brooks’ person and some "redness around the wrist” (Record at 127), that observation was made without any suggestion or implication which might bear upon causation or time of infliction, other than hear*763say as to what Brooks said. His testimony as to what Brooks told him was admitted solely for impeachment purposes and could not be considered as establishing the fact of the battery.

. Exclusive of hearsay, evidence relating to the incident of June 1996 does not permit a conclusion that Jones "knowingly or intentionally touch[ed] [Brooks] in a rude, insolent, or angry manner” I.C. 35^42-2-1 (West’s 1997 Supp.) Brooks testified that Jones "accidentally” hit her in the eye. Record at 116. Such act does not reflect a knowing or intentional striking. Other than hearsay, there was no other evidence of a battery on this occasion.

. One might venture the view that proceedings relating to probation revocation are not truly proceedings relating to probation itself. Valid basis may be found to conclude that hearsay is readily amenable to the process which, as a matter of leniency, results in a decision to place a person upon probation or to not do so. When, however, one views the penal consequences of a revocation of probation, the reliability and trustworthiness of the evidence which results in such revocation may be considered more essential. One might draw such implication from the observation made in Payne v. State, supra, noting that hearsay is excluded in civil proceedings and no rationale was perceived "for treating a probationer with less deference than a civil litigant.” 515 N.E.2d at 1144.

. I concur in the decision of the majority to the effect that Jones is not entitled to credit for the ninety days served in 1996 on home detention. I do so, however, not on the basis of I.C. 35-50-6-6(a) or Collins v. State (1994) Ind.App., 639 N.E.2d 653, but rather upon I.C. 35-38-2.6-6. See Franklin v. State, Ind., 685 N.E.2d 1062 (1997).