Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 71A03-9209-CR-307,71A03-9209-CR-307 |
| Citation | 606 N.E.2d 881 |
| Parties | Christopher JOHNSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Kenneth M. Hays, South Bend, for appellant-defendant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Sue A. Bradley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
Appellant-defendant Christopher Johnson appeals from the revocation of his probation following his conviction for battery, a Class C felony. Johnson's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court exceeded its authority when it revoked his probation for conduct occurring prior to the commencement of the probationary period.
On July 24, 1991, the State filed an information charging Johnson with Count I, robbery, a Class B felony; and Count II, battery, a Class A misdemeanor. Subsequently, the information was amended to add Count III, battery, a Class C felony. Johnson pleaded guilty to Count III, and the State agreed to dismiss Counts I and II. On December 2, 1991, the trial court accepted the guilty plea, and Johnson was sentenced to the Indiana Department of Correction for a term of five years, with three years suspended and two of those years on probation. The court further recommended that Johnson's first year be served at the Indiana Department of Correction and the second year at the DuComb Center.
In December of 1991, after Johnson arrived at the DuComb Center, a residential manager of the Center performed the necessary intake procedures. Johnson was read the rules of the Center, which included a term that he not leave the Center without permission. Johnson acknowledged that he understood the rules. On January 10, 1992, Johnson was granted permission to go to a nearby store. Johnson failed to return to the DuComb Center. As a result of Johnson's rule violation, the State filed a petition to revoke placement. A hearing was held on the petition. On April 21, 1992, the trial court issued an order revoking Johnson's placement at the DuComb Center and committing him to the Department of Correction to serve the remainder of his five-year sentence.
Johnson argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation prior to the commencement of the probationary period. Probation is a matter addressed to the sole discretion of the trial judge. Campbell v. State (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 1164, 1169. A conditional liberty, such as probation, is a favor and not a right. Ashba v. State (1991), Ind.App., 570 N.E.2d 937, 940, aff'd per curiam, Ind., 580 N.E.2d 244. The probation statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...that a trial court may revoke probation before the defendant has entered the probationary phases of his sentence. Johnson v. State (1993), Ind.App., 606 N.E.2d 881, 882. Further, we have "The appellant would have us read this provision as exclusive; only if an individual is "on probation" m......
-
Waters v. State
...before he begins the probation phase of his sentence. See Gardner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 398, 401 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) ; Johnson v. State, 606 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) ; Ashba v. State, 570 N.E.2d 937, 940 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), aff'd, 580 N.E.2d 244 (Ind.1991). The court was not saying tha......
-
Champlain v. State
...revocation prior to the start of probation. See Childers v. State, 656 N.E.2d 514, 516-18 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Johnson v. State, 606 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind. Ct.App.1993); see also IND.CODE §§ 35-38-2-1 & 35-38-2-3 (1998). In this case, Champlain had sufficient assets at the time of sentencing t......
-
Hubbard v. State
...The decision on whether to revoke probation is a matter addressed to the sole discretion of the trial judge. Johnson v. State, 606 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). We will affirm revocation if, considering only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom, there is sufficien......