Holmes v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 09A02-0909-CR-883.,09A02-0909-CR-883. |
| Citation | 923 N.E.2d 479 |
| Parties | Adonis HOLMES, Appellant/Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee/Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Matthew D. Barrett, Matthew D. Barrett, P.C., Logansport, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Wade James Hornbacher, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellant/Defendant Adonis Holmes appeals the trial court's determination that he violated the terms of his home detention. Specifically, Holmes challenges the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his placement on home detention. We affirm.
On March 14, 2007, Holmes was charged with Class C felony possession of cocaine, Class D felony residential entry, and two counts of Class D felony theft. The State subsequently amended the charging information to include a charge that Holmes was a habitual offender. On February 21, 2008, Holmes pled guilty to Class C felony possession of cocaine pursuant to a plea agreement in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts and the habitual offender charge. On March 18, 2008, Holmes was sentenced to six years of incarceration with two years suspended to probation.
On May 1, 2009, less than seventy days after being released from the Department of Correction ("DOC"), Holmes was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and public intoxication. The Cass County Probation Department filed a notice of probation violation on May 5, 2009, alleging that Holmes violated the terms of his probation by committing the offenses of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and public intoxication. Holmes's probation was revoked after Holmes admitted to violating his probation, and on June 17, 2009, Holmes was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence, ninety-eight weeks, on home detention.
Less than one month later, on July 13, 2009, Holmes submitted a urine sample as part of the random screening process connected to his home detention. The sample, which was tested by AIT Laboratories, tested positive for alcohol, indicating that at the time the sample was given, Holmes's blood alcohol content ("BAC") was .046%. On July 23, 2009, the State filed a notice alleging that Holmes violated the terms of his home detention by consuming alcohol. The trial court conducted a fact-finding hearing on August 27, 2009, at the conclusion of which the trial court determined that the evidence supported a finding that Holmes had violated the terms of his home detention. The trial court revoked Holmes's placement on home detention and ordered that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. Holmes now appeals.
On appeal, Holmes challenges the admissibility of the urinalysis report admitted during the revocation hearing and by claiming that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had consumed alcohol in violation of the conditions of his home detention. Holmes also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his placement on home detention.
For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind.1999). The similarities between the two dictate this approach. Id. Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the DOC and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court. Id. A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program. Id. Rather, placement in either is a "matter of grace" and a "conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right." Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (internal quotation omitted)).
While a community corrections placement revocation hearing has certain due process requirements, it is not to be equated with an adversarial criminal proceeding. Id. at 549-50. Rather, it is a narrow inquiry, and its procedures are to be more flexible. Id. This is necessary to permit the court to exercise its inherent power to enforce obedience to its lawful orders. Id. Accordingly, the Indiana Rules of Evidence in general and the rules against hearsay in particular do not apply in community corrections placement revocation hearings. See id. at 550-51; see also Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c) (). In probation and community corrections placement revocation hearings, therefore, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. This includes reliable hearsay. Id. The absence of strict evidentiary rules places particular importance on the fact-finding role of judges in assessing the weight sufficiency and reliability of proffered evidence. Id. This assessment, then, carries with it a special level of judicial responsibility and is subject to appellate review. Id. Nevertheless, it is not subject to the Rules of Evidence nor to the common law rules of evidence in effect prior to the Rules of Evidence. Id.
Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. Id. A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation. Id.
Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct.App.2009).
On appeal, Holmes contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the urinalysis report into evidence during the home detention revocation hearing. Specifically, Holmes argues that the urinalysis report is unreliable hearsay because neither the toxicologist nor the certifying scientist testified during the home detention revocation hearing. Generally, the admission of evidence is within the trial court's discretion, and its decisions are only reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. State v. Seabrooks, 803 N.E.2d 1190, 1193 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). An abuse of discretion occurs if a decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law. Id. However, if the trial court abuses its discretion in admitting evidence, the defendant is not entitled to a new trial unless he demonstrates that the improperly admitted evidence contributed to the trial court's determination. Id.
Again, the due process right applicable in a hearing relating to the revocation of probation or a community corrections placement allows for procedures that are more flexible than in a criminal prosecution. Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind.2007). Such flexibility allows courts to enforce lawful orders, address an offender's personal circumstances, and protect public safety, sometimes within limited time periods. Id. Within this framework, and to promote the aforementioned goals of a hearing relating to the revocation of probation or a community corrections placement, courts may admit evidence during the hearing that would not be permitted in a full-blown criminal trial. Id. However, this does not mean that hearsay evidence may be admitted "willy-nilly" in a hearing relating to the revocation of probation or a community corrections placement. Id.
In Reyes, the Indiana Supreme Court adopted the substantial trustworthiness test as the means for determining whether hearsay evidence should be admitted during a hearing relating to the revocation of an individual's probation or community corrections placement. Id. at 441. The substantial trustworthiness test requires that the trial court evaluate the reliability of the hearsay evidence. Id. at 442. In support of its holding adopting the substantial trustworthiness test, the Supreme Court noted that the need for flexibility combined with the potentially onerous consequences of mandating a balancing inquiry for every piece of hearsay evidence in every probation revocation hearing in Indiana weighs strongly in favor of the substantial trustworthiness test. Id. at 441.
In Reyes, the State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that the Defendant violated his probation by testing positive for cocaine. Id. at 439. During a hearing on the matter, the State sought to submit into evidence the affidavit of the scientific director of the laboratory that conducted the test on urine samples provided by the defendant, the results of the urinalysis tests on the samples provided by the defendant, and other related documents. Id. The scientific director did not testify at the hearing. Id. Defendant's counsel objected to the admission of the affidavits as hearsay and claimed that the admission of the affidavit without live testimony from the affiant would violate the defendant's right to confrontation. Id. The trial court admitted the affidavits and revoked the defendant's probation. Id. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of the defendant's probation. Id. at 443.
The Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Reyes is instructive here because we are faced with a similar factual scenario. In Reyes, the scientific director of the laboratory that conducted the urinalysis test affirmed under the penalties of perjury that he was familiar with the procedures employed to ensure the chain of custody of samples, the testing of those samples, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blanks v. State
...urine tested positive for amphetamines and methamphetamines was admissible without testimony from the lab technicians); Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.App.2010) (accord). In these cases, the courts reasoned that even when a urinalysis test result is the central evidence relied upon to......
- Blanks v. State
- Rieth-Riley Const. Co., Inc. v. Gibson
-
Henry v. State
...proceeding is civil in nature, the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Holmes v. State , 923 N.E.2d 479, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). If a violation is found, the court then determines whether the violation warrants revocation. Woods v. State , 892 N......