Yates v. State

Citation429 N.E.2d 992
Decision Date13 January 1982
Docket NumberNo. 3-781A169,3-781A169
PartiesMichael Dee YATES, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Rick L. Jancha, South Bend, for defendant-appellants.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge.

Michael D. Yates entered a plea of guilty to the charge of robbery, a class C felony. Yates was instructed to contact the St. Joseph County Adult Probation Department for his pre-sentence investigation. During the interview with the probation department, Yates signed a form granting permission for the release of information about himself. At the time he signed the release form, it was blank as to the addressee. Subsequently, the form was sent to Riverwood Community Mental Health Center in St. Joseph, Michigan. The inquiry by the probation department elicited a response from Riverwood and it is the content of that responsive letter which gave rise to this appeal.

Yates filed a Verified Petition to Expunge Improperly Obtained Information from Presentence Investigative Report and Change of Venue from Judge. A hearing was held on the petitions and they were denied. The trial court then proceeded with the sentencing and sentenced Yates to the Indiana Department of Corrections for five years and ordered him to pay the cost of the action.

Yates alleges the trial court erred in failing to expunge from the pre-sentence report a letter received from the Riverwood Mental Health Center for the following reasons:

1) It had been obtained in violation of his rights against self-incrimination;

2) It had been obtained in violation of his rights to assistance of counsel;

3) It had been obtained as a result of an invalid waiver and in violation of his rights to confidentiality with respect to communications made between himself and his physician and/or psychiatrist, his psychologist, his social worker, and his wife.

In addition, Yates alleges the trial court erred in failing to grant his request for change of venue from the judge.

The presumption of innocence does not extend to sentencing proceedings. A trial judge may consider almost any relevant information in determining what sentence to invoke. Lottie v. State (1980), Ind., 406 N.E.2d 632; Griffin v. State (1980), Ind., 402 N.E.2d 981. The Legislature has provided for the making of pre-sentence reports in order to assist the judge in individualized sentencing and has given probation officers a great deal of freedom in determining what to include in the report. IC 1971, 35-4.1-4-9-10. 1 Of course, the pre-sentence report must contain only accurate information and therefore, a defendant is given the opportunity to refute the information in the report. IC 1971, 35-4.1-4-12-13. 2 Yates does not dispute the accuracy of the information contained in the letter from Riverwood, but feels its inclusion in the report violated his rights.

In Gardner v. State (1979), Ind., 388 N.E.2d 513, our Supreme Court dealt with the same issue regarding self-incrimination that is now raised by Yates. In Gardner the defendant was informed previously of his right to remain silent and that anything he said could be used against him. There was no showing of coercion by the probation officer during his interview. The same holds true in the action now before us. Yates had been advised of his rights at his hearing and voluntarily signed the release form. We must conclude as did the court in Gardner that his right against self-incrimination was not violated.

Likewise, Yates had previously been advised of his right to counsel. Yates was represented by counsel at his hearing and at his sentencing where he had the opportunity to refute what was in the pre-sentence report. Stevenson v. State (1975), 164 Ind.App. 199, 327 N.E.2d 621. Thus far, it has not been held in Indiana that a convicted defendant's pre-sentence interview with the probation department is a critical stage in the proceedings such that it necessitates the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Voris v. Molinaro
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 22, 2011
    ......804] of consortium are cognizable in this state. Id., at 494–96, 408 A.2d 260. We concluded that the “potential for improper verdicts” did not militate against adopting this cause of action ......
  • Voris v. Molinaro—Dissent
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 22, 2011
    ...... Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal ......
  • Forrester v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 7, 1982
    ...decision. Lottie v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 632, 640. This same discretion extends to the trial court. Yates v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 992, 993-94. The data at issue are not outside the ambit of the Defendant also argues that statements of a clinical psychologist, who int......
  • Tina T., Matter of
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 30, 1991
    ...of sentence is to enable the court to structure an individualized sentence for the defendant then before the court. Yates v. State (1982), Ind.App., 429 N.E.2d 992. This point was made in a separate opinion in the context of the proper construction of Sec. 9-2252 (Burns 1956), a predecessor......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT