Perry v. State
Decision Date | 16 November 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 41A04-9404-CR-149,41A04-9404-CR-149 |
Citation | 642 N.E.2d 536 |
Parties | Christopher D. PERRY, Appellant-Defendant v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Christopher D. Perry (hereinafter Perry) appeals the revocation of his probation by the trial court. We affirm.
The sole issue presented for our review is whether Perry continued to be subject to the conditions of his probation during the "tolled" period between filing of the state's petition to revoke his probation and the final determination of the charge.
Perry pleaded guilty to Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated with a Prior Conviction on February 2, 1991. The trial court sentenced him to three years partially suspended and three years of probation. The conditions of Perry's probation included that he refrain from possessing or consuming alcohol.
On August 16, 1993, the state filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that Perry tested positive for the presence of alcohol on August 13, 1993. At the hearing on November 24, 1993, Perry admitted this violation. The trial court ordered Perry to serve 60 days on home detention and continued his probation. On the same day, the state filed a second petition to revoke probation alleging that Perry again violated the conditions by testing positive for alcohol consumption. 1 The hearing on the second petition for revocation was held on January 26, 1994. At the second hearing the trial court revoked Perry's probation and ordered that he execute his three year suspended sentence, less time already served. (R. 43). Perry now appeals.
Perry argues that his consumption of alcohol on November 24th, 1993 occurred during a time when his probation was tolled by operation of law. Appellant's brief, p. 6. Since his probationary period was tolled from August 16, 1993 until November 24, 1993, Perry claims that he was not subject to the conditions of probation when this violation occurred. Therefore, he asserts that the state cannot use his alcohol consumption on November 24th as the basis for revoking his probation.
Perry correctly points out that I.C. § 35-38-2-3 automatically tolls the period of probation when the state files a petition to revoke probation. In pertinent part, this statute reads:
(b) When a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of probation, the court may:
(1) Offer a summons to be issued to the person to appear; or
(2) Order a warrant for the person's arrest if there is a risk of the person's fleeing the jurisdiction or causing harm to others.
(c) The issuance of a summons or warrant tolls the period of probation until the final determination of the charge. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(b), (c) (West Supp.1992).
We disagree, however, with Perry's contention that he was not subject to the conditions of his probation during the tolled period.
The purpose of I.C. § 35-38-2-3(c) is to grant a trial court power to revoke probation and order a person returned to jail when it determines that such person violated probation, even though the disposition regarding that violation occurs after the original term of probation has expired. Slinkard v. State (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1282, 1284 ( ). The statute's intent is to hold probationers responsible for violations of their probation, even if the final disposition of an alleged violation occurs...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hubbard v. State
...and Hubbard now appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW Probation is a conditional liberty that is a privilege, not a right. Perry v. State, 642 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). Revocation of an individual's probation deprives the individual "not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is enti......
-
Brooks v. State
...that is a favor, not a right.' " Id. at 1002 (quoting Gilfillen v. State, 582 N.E.2d 821, 824 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); Perry v. State, 642 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). Similarly, placement in an in-home detention program is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a......
-
Mumford v. State
...place during the period of probation but for which disposition is not or cannot be made within the probation period. Perry v. State (1994) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 642 N.E.2d 536; Slinkard v. State (1993) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 1282; Phillips v. State (1993) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 611 N.E.2d 198......
-
Stevenson v. State
...period; rather, it is a “matter of grace.” Id. Probation is a conditional liberty that is a privilege, not a right. Perry v. State, 642 N.E.2d 536, 538 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). Indiana Code Section 35–38–2–3 authorizes the trial court to take one or more of the following actions if it finds that ......