Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Woods v. Stategreen2 sentences2020Id. 2017Id. [8] Where, as here, a probationer admits to the violation, the court can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. | 2 | 12 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Unless the probationer admits violation, the court must hear evidence “in open court” and the State “must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f) (2015). “[V]iolation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.” Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. [8] When a probationer appeals the sufficiency of evidence supporting revocation, “we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment - without regard to the weight or credibility - and will affirm if there is substantial evidence of | 1 | 1 |
Donald Murdock v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017Unless the probationer admits violation, the court must hear evidence “in open court” and the State “must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f) (2015). “[V]iolation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.” Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. [8] When a probationer appeals the sufficiency of evidence supporting revocation, “we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment - without regard to the weight or credibility - and will affirm if there is substantial evidence of | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Parker v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. State
green
2 sentences2017Id. [10] Upon revocation of probation, a trial court may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. 2016Id. [10] Upon revocation of probation, a trial court may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. | 11 | 2011–2017 |
Butler v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Alford v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Vernon v. State
green
2 sentences2010When a probationer admits to a violation, the court can proceed to the second step and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. *446 Id. 2010But "even a probationer who admits the allegations against him must still be given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation." Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Terrell v. State
green
1 sentence2009Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640 ; Terrell, 886 N.E.2d at 101 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.