Saucerman v. State
Decision Date | 17 August 2022 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-CR-501 |
Parties | James SAUCERMAN, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Kelly Starling, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Myriam Serrano, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] James Saucerman appeals the revocation of his probation. Saucerman raises two issues for our review, of which we find the following dispositive: whether he was deprived of due process because the trial court did not advise him of certain rights in the probation revocation proceedings. Concluding Saucerman was denied fundamental due process because he was not advised as required by statute, we reverse and remand.
[2] In 2020, Saucerman pleaded guilty to dealing in methamphetamine and was sentenced to a total of 1,095 days, with eighty-five days to be executed and the remainder suspended to probation. Conditions of Saucerman's probation included that he "not use illegal drugs or any controlled substance ... and submit to drug screening as directed[,]" participate in a substance abuse evaluation and/or treatment if required, and "report to Probation as directed and communicate truthfully with the Probation Department." Appellant's Appendix, Volume II at 93.
[3] On November 5, 2021, the State filed a notice of probation violation alleging Saucerman failed to comply with and follow recommendations of a substance abuse evaluation and failed to submit to drug screens as directed on two occasions, once in September and once in October.1 A hearing was set for November 30, but Saucerman failed to appear. A warrant was issued for his arrest. In December, the State amended the notice of probation violation to add a new allegation of failing to submit to a drug screen in December, as well as failing to refrain from the use of illegal drugs (Saucerman tested positive for methamphetamine on November 25), and failing to report to the probation department as directed on two occasions, once in November and once in December.
[4] Saucerman was arrested on the warrant on February 13, 2022, and a remote initial hearing on the notice of probation violation was held on February 16. The trial court swore Saucerman in and then the following colloquy ensued:
Transcript, Volume 2 at 3-5. The trial court found Saucerman had admitted two of the allegations of the notice of violation (that he failed to submit to a drug screen as directed in December and that he failed to report to probation as directed in November and December) and revoked his probation, ordering that he serve the previously suspended 1,010 days in the Department of Correction. See id. at 6. Saucerman now appeals.
[5] Saucerman contends he was denied fundamental due process at the probation revocation hearing because he was not properly advised of his rights before the trial court accepted what it considered an admission and revoked his probation. Whether a party was denied due process is a question of law that we review de novo. Hilligoss v. State , 45 N.E.3d 1228, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[6] "A probationer faced with a petition to revoke his probation is not entitled to the full panoply of rights he enjoyed prior to the conviction."
Cooper v. State , 900 N.E.2d 64, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). However, because a probation revocation can result in a loss of liberty, the probationer is entitled to certain due process protections during the proceedings. Hilligoss , 45 N.E.3d at 1230. These due process requirements are codified in Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3.
[7] When a petition to revoke probation is filed, "the court shall conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violation." Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(d). At such a hearing, evidence must be presented in open court, and the probationer is "entitled to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sanders v. State
...a probationer may admit to a probation violation, but he must be "advised that he is giving up" these protections. Saucerman v. State, 193 N.E.3d 1028, 1031 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022). Ultimately, whether a probationer was denied due process is a question of law we review de novo. Hilligoss v. Stat......
-
Beavers v. State
...before the trial court. Id. at 550. 7 [¶11] In both Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228, 1232 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) and Saucerman v. State, 193 N.E.3d 1028, 1031 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) we concluded that a trial court's failure to advise a probationer, who had admitted to having violated the terms o......
-
Moffitt v. State
...at a hearing where the State would have to prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence); Saucerman v. State, 193 N.E.3d 1028, 1031 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (recognizing that the trial court was required to advise a probationer, prior to accepting what the trial court considered......