751 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.App. 2001), 48A05-0011-PC-498, Dawson v. State

Docket Nº:48A05-0011-PC-498.
Citation:751 N.E.2d 812
Party Name:Lance Reed DAWSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Case Date:July 18, 2001
Court:Court of Appeals of Indiana

Page 812

751 N.E.2d 812 (Ind.App. 2001)

Lance Reed DAWSON, Appellant-Defendant,

v.

STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 48A05-0011-PC-498.

Court of Appeals of Indiana

July 18, 2001

Page 813

Anthony Lawrence, Anderson, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Stephen R. Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Timothy W. Beam, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

HOFFMAN, Senior Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Lance Reed Dawson (Dawson) appeals the revocation of his probation. We reverse.

Dawson raises one issue which we state as: whether the trial court erred by revoking Dawson's probation based upon an incident that occurred subsequent to his probationary period.

In 1990, Dawson pleaded guilty to burglary, a Class B felony. He was sentenced to six years, all of which were suspended, and he was placed on three years of probation. In September 1992, his probation officer filed with the court a notice of probation violation alleging that Dawson had failed to comply with recommendations of the mental health center and failed to abstain from illicit drugs in that he had failed a drug test in August 1992. A hearing was set for December 14, 1992 but was continued due to the unavailability of the State's witness. The court subsequently re-set the hearing for January 25, 1993. On January 6, 1993, the hearing was again continued upon the State's motion and was re-set for February 22, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Dawson moved the court to continue the hearing. The court granted Dawson's motion but never re-set the hearing date. Seven years later, on June 12, 2000, the State filed an amended notice of probation violation alleging that Dawson's probationary period had been tolled by the filing of the 1992 notice of probation violation. The amended notice also alleged that Dawson had violated his probation by committing new criminal offenses in November 1998 and in May 2000; by not keeping probation informed of his address; by not complying with treatment recommendations and not providing written verification of compliance; and by not abstaining from the use of illicit drugs as alleged in the 1992 violation notice. Following a hearing on October 23, 2000, the trial court revoked Dawson's probation and sentenced him to six years. It is from this decision that Dawson now appeals.

Dawson contends that the trial court improperly revoked...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP