23 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). [10] A reviewing court addresses a decision to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as a decision to revoke probation. 2016Dokes v. State, 971 N.E.2d 178, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). | 3 | 3 |
Braxton v. Stategreen2 sentences2013“In proving that a defendant has violated the condition of ‘good behavior,’ the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has engaged in unlawful activity.” Justice v. State, 550 N.E.2d 809, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “[I]t is always a condition of probation that a probationer not commit an additional crime.” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. 2012I.C. § 35-38-2-3(e)1; Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. | 3 | 3 |
Abernathy v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). [7] According to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(f), to revoke a defendant’s probation due to an alleged violation, “the state must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Thereafter, if the State has proved that a violation of probation occurred, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing.” I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). 1 In this separate criminal proceeding, the trial court granted Murray’s motion to suppress evidence that the State rel | 1 | 1 |
Million v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Rather, such placement is a “‘matter of grace’” and a “‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’” Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App.1995)). [9] A revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and the State must prove a violation of the terms of placement by a preponderance of the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2015See Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 617 (Ind. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Pitman v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Reyes v. Stategreen2 sentences2014“The State must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[T]here is no right to probation: the trial court has discretion whether to grant it, under what conditions, and whether to revoke it if conditions are violated.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). “[P]robationers do not receive the same constitutional rights that defendants receive at trial.” Id. 2014“The State must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[T]here is no right to probation: the trial court has discretion whether to grant it, under what conditions, and whether to revoke it if conditions are violated.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). “[P]robationers do not receive the same constitutional rights that defendants receive at trial.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Monroegreen1 sentence2013Whatley v. State, 847 N.E.2d 3 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Justice v. Stategreen1 sentence2013“In proving that a defendant has violated the condition of ‘good behavior,’ the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has engaged in unlawful activity.” Justice v. State, 550 N.E.2d 809, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “[I]t is always a condition of probation that a probationer not commit an additional crime.” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Whatley v. Stategreen1 sentence2012Whatley v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Runyon v. State
green
2 sentences2015Runyon, 939 N.E.2d at 616 . 2015Runyon, 939 N.E.2d at 616 . | 5 | 2012–2015 |
Curtis L. Bass v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Rather, such placement is a “‘matter of grace’” and a “‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’” Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App.1995)). [9] A revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and the State must prove a violation of the terms of placement by a preponderance of the evidence. 2014“The State must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “[T]here is no right to probation: the trial court has discretion whether to grant it, under what conditions, and whether to revoke it if conditions are violated.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). “[P]robationers do not receive the same constitutional rights that defendants receive at trial.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2019 |
Hape v. State
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Menifee v. State
green
1 sentence1997IC 35-38-2-3; Menifee, 600 N.E.2d at 970 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Monroe v. State
neutral
1 sentence1994Monroe v. State (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 831 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Colorado v. Connelly
green
2 sentences1989Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 168-69 , 107 S.Ct. at 523 , 93 L.Ed.2d at 485 . 1989Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. at 168-69 , 107 S.Ct. at 523 , 93 L.Ed.2d at 485 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Ortiz v. State
green
2 sentences1979Burton v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 94 , 292 N.E.2d 790 ; Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . 1979Burton v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 94 , 292 N.E.2d 790 ; Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Burton v. State
green
2 sentences1979Burton v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 94 , 292 N.E.2d 790 ; Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . 1979Burton v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 94 , 292 N.E.2d 790 ; Ortiz v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 549 , 356 N.E.2d 1188 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.