12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences2017Id. at 1164 (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), where the United States Supreme Court applied the Due Process Clause to parole revocation hearings and stated the minimum requirements of a parole revocation hearing, including the written statement requirement). 2017Id. at 1164 (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), where the United States Supreme Court applied the Due Process Clause to parole revocation hearings and stated the minimum requirements of a parole revocation hearing, including the written statement requirement). | 1 | 6 |
Black v. Romanogreen2 sentences2008See, e.g., Black, 471 U.S. at 614 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 (No automatic revocation “[wjhere a fíne or restitution is imposed as a condition of probation, and ‘the probationer has made all reasonable efforts to pay ... yet cannot do so through no fault of his own.’ ”) (internal quotations- omitted); see also Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 (Discussing the minimum due process requirements at a parole revocation hearing the Court declared, “The parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances in miti 2008See, e.g., Black, 471 U.S. at 614 , 105 S.Ct. 2254 (No automatic revocation “[wjhere a fíne or restitution is imposed as a condition of probation, and ‘the probationer has made all reasonable efforts to pay ... yet cannot do so through no fault of his own.’ ”) (internal quotations- omitted); see also Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 488 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 (Discussing the minimum due process requirements at a parole revocation hearing the Court declared, “The parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances in miti | 1 | 2 |
Wente v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Rule 21 provides that the rules of trial procedure apply in criminal proceedings “so far as they are not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by this court for the conduct of criminal proceedings.” See also Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893, 893-93 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (applying T.R. 6(A) to calculate the 60-day period within which a parole revocation hearing must be held, and consequently excluding date of the triggering event, i.e., date on which the parolee was extradited), trans. denied; Wente v. State, 440 N.E.2d 512, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (applying T.R. 6(A) to compute the defen | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. Indiana Parole Boardgreen1 sentence2016Rule 21 provides that the rules of trial procedure apply in criminal proceedings “so far as they are not in conflict with any specific rule adopted by this court for the conduct of criminal proceedings.” See also Ward v. Ind. Parole Bd., 805 N.E.2d 893, 893-93 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (applying T.R. 6(A) to calculate the 60-day period within which a parole revocation hearing must be held, and consequently excluding date of the triggering event, i.e., date on which the parolee was extradited), trans. denied; Wente v. State, 440 N.E.2d 512, 513 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (applying T.R. 6(A) to compute the defen | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind.1999) (discussing probation) (citations omitted), reh'g demied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lawson v. State
green
2 sentences2019Id. [6] Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10 (a) provides in part that “[a] parolee who is confined due to an alleged violation of parole shall be afforded a parole revocation hearing within sixty (60) days after the parolee is made available to the department by a jail or state correctional facility . . . .” Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10 (c) provides in part that, if a parolee commits a new level 6 felony, “the parole board may revoke the parole and order continuous imprisonment.” Ind. Code § 11-13-3 - 10(e) provides that, “[u]nless good cause for the delay is established in the record of the proceeding, the paro 2019Id. [6] Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10 (a) provides in part that “[a] parolee who is confined due to an alleged violation of parole shall be afforded a parole revocation hearing within sixty (60) days after the parolee is made available to the department by a jail or state correctional facility . . . .” Ind. Code § 11-13-3-10 (c) provides in part that, if a parolee commits a new level 6 felony, “the parole board may revoke the parole and order continuous imprisonment.” Ind. Code § 11-13-3 - 10(e) provides that, “[u]nless good cause for the delay is established in the record of the proceeding, the paro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Medicus v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 1164 (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), where the United States Supreme Court applied the Due Process Clause to parole revocation hearings and stated the minimum requirements of a parole revocation hearing, including the written statement requirement). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Komyatti v. State
green
1 sentence2015Not to do so invites confusion and escalates the chance of reversal.” Id. at 420 . 9 During the final Board hearing, Kaufman pleaded guilty to having violated HIPAA and the policies and procedures of the group. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott
green
2 sentences2000Id. at 364 , 118 S.Ct. at 2020 . 2000Id. at 364 , 118 S.Ct. at 2020 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
2 sentences1996Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1759 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). 1996Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 , 93 S.Ct. 1756, 1759 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hawkins v. Jenkins
green
1 sentence1982Hawkins v. Jenkins (1978), Ind., 374 N.E.2d 496 , 500 and Morrissey v. Brewer (1972), 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2595 ; 33 L.Ed.2d 484 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Mapp v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1976The court then went on to say: “The further question remains whether the ‘evidence-exclusionary’ rule, as an independently operative remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made binding on the States by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), has applicability to a hearing for revocation of a probation granted incident to the imposition, and suspension of the execution, of a sentence for guilt of crime (or for revocation of parole). 1976The court then went on to say: “The further question remains whether the ‘evidence-exclusionary’ rule, as an independently operative remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States made binding on the States by Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1081 (1961), has applicability to a hearing for revocation of a probation granted incident to the imposition, and suspension of the execution, of a sentence for guilt of crime (or for revocation of parole). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Caron
green
1 sentence1976“It is therefore clear that if this case involved only the question of whether the evidence obtained in the Cook residence was admissible in a parole revocation hearing, the issue would be resolved in favor of admissibility.” Further, in State v. Caron (1975), Me., 334 A. 2d 495, at 499 , the court held that “suppression procedures” found in the criminal code were not available at a probation hearing. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.