Braxton v. State, 48A04-9311-CR-425
Decision Date | 28 September 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 48A04-9311-CR-425,48A04-9311-CR-425 |
Citation | 640 N.E.2d 726 |
Parties | Marquita D. BRAXTON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William Byer, Jr., Byer & Byer, Anderson, for appellant.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Deana M. McIntire Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
CHEZEM, Presiding Judge, on petition for rehearing.
In its petition for rehearing, the State asserts that we erred in our decision that Marquita Braxton was denied due process because she was not provided with written notice that the State sought to have her probation revoked.The State argues that we erred by "materially misstat[ing] the record of proceedings by finding that it contains only a petition for home detention and not a petition for revocation of probation alleging a violation of probation."In support of this argument, the State directs us to pages 96 and 97 of the record, stating that "[t]he Violation of Suspended Sentence pleading asked for a revocation of [Braxton's] probation and alleged five violations of the conditions of probation."The Violation of Suspended Sentence reads as follows:
To: Marquita D. Braxton
Before THE HONORABLE THOMAS NEWMAN, JR.
You are hereby notified as follows:
1.That on June 15, 1992, in Madison Superior Court, Division III, you were found guilty of Dealing in Cocaine, a Class B Felony in CauseNos. 48D03-9109-CF-130, 48D03-9109-CF-133, and 48D03-9011-CF-171;
2.That sentence of 13 years of the 15-year sentence to the Indiana Department of Correction was suspended, upon condition that you obey certain specific terms of that suspended sentence;
3.That you violated those conditions as follows:
a) Not to violate the laws of Indiana or the U.S.: On/about July 13, 1993, the defendant committed the criminal offenses of Disorderly Conduct and Possession of Marijuana;
b) Comply with recommendation of treatment facility;
c) Complete therapy ordered;
d) Failure to abstain from alcohol/illicit drugs: On/about July 13, 1993, defendant submitted to a urinalysis, which tested positive for marijuana;
e) Failure to comply with specific order of sentencing: On/about June 20, 1993, and June 29, 1993, defendant violated conditions of in-home detention by forcibly removing B.I. Monitoring ankle and transmitter from her person;
Therefore, the Probation Department recommends to the Court that:
A Summons to issue for defendant probationer to appear in court,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Braxton v. State
...petition to transfer the decision of the Court of Appeals in Braxton v. State (1994), Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 440, 441, reh'g denied, 640 N.E.2d 726. In that decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's revocation of Marquita Braxton's probation because, it said, Braxton was denie......
-
Richeson v. State
...argues that he was denied due process pursuant to Braxton v. State (1994), Ind.App., 638 N.E.2d 440, reh'g denied, (1994), Ind.App., 640 N.E.2d 726. Specifically, Richeson attempts to analogize his case to Braxton, wherein this court found that "Braxton was denied due process when the trial......