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.
142 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 5 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 sentences2026First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). 2020First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). | 27 | 54 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2019Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. 2019Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. | 8 | 11 |
Vernon v. Stategreen2 sentences2018If a violation is proven, then the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1414 | November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 7 trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citations omitted), trans. denied. 2016If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. | 6 | 7 |
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2026First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). 2025Again, we disagree. [16] When a probation violation is alleged, the trial court engages in two functions: “[f]irst, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred;” and “[s]econd, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). | 4 | 19 |
Parker v. Stategreen2 sentences2018If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Parker v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). 2016Id. | 3 | 8 |
Justin S. Johnson v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2020Id. 2017Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). [7] Revocation is a two-step process: first, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of placement occurred, and if a violation is proven, the trial court must then determine if the violation warrants revocation. | 3 | 5 |
Beeler v. Stategreen2 sentences2014Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 829-30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 2014Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828 , 829–30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). | 3 | 4 |
Cox v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. 2015Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).2 First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of probation has occurred. | 1 | 14 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2012First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred .... [T]hen, the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640 (Ind.2008) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 479-80 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). 2012First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred .... [T]hen, the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640 (Ind.2008) (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 479-80 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). | 1 | 8 |
Terrell v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98, 103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied. 2009Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640 ; Terrell, 886 N.E.2d at 101 . | 1 | 2 |
Cox v. Stategreen1 sentence2026Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008); Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied. | 1 | 1 |
Braxton v. Stategreen1 sentence2018With respect to this initial determination, “[a] probation hearing is civil in nature,” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), and the State “must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence,” Ind. Code § 35 - 38-2-3(f). | 1 | 1 |
Paul Hardy v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016); Hardy v. State, 975 N.E.2d 833, 835 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James Clinton Hollandgreen1 sentence2012“However, 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. (citing United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1051 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam)). | 1 | 1 |
Ben-Yisrayl v. Stategreen2 sentences2009Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 105-06 (Ind.2000). 2009Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 729 N.E.2d 102, 105-06 (Ind. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lucas H. Jackson v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2018“First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Id. (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). 2018“First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Id. (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). | 7 | 2017–2018 |
Alford v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2014Id. | 7 | 2012–2016 |
Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019“Second, if a violation is proven, the trial court must determine whether the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Id. 2019“First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation has taken place.” Id. | 2 | 2017–2019 |
Derrian N. Hampton v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019“First, the trial court makes a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred; second, if a violation is proven, the trial court must determine if the violation warrants a revocation of the probation.” Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
James Ripps v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2014Ripps, 968 N.E.2d at 326 . | 2 | 2014–2016 |
Jeffery Overstreet v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2026Davis’s argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence is merely a request to reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. [23] After the trial court makes a factual determination that a violation of a condition has occurred, the court “must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation.” Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260 , 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Chad E. Hammann v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2025Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) governs such sanctions and provides: If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) 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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period. (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brad L. Sullivan v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2017Sullivan v. State, 56 N.E.2d 1157 , 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Rosa v. State
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2015Treece, 10 N.E.3d at 56 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Helton v. State
green
1 sentence2011Helton v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1020 (Ind.2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.