written statement requirement in Indiana

2018See Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618 , Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1711-CR-2597 | May 10, 2018 Page 8 of 9 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court’s written revocation order, which provided reasons for revocation, and hearing transcript, which provided evidence underlying revocation, “provide[d] an adequate basis for appellate review” and were “adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement.”); Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court’s oral hearing statement in which court found that “State has met its burden of proof and [f]ound the

2018See, e.g., Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 621 (the trial court’s written revocation order, which provided the reasons for revocation, and the hearing transcript, which provided the evidence underlying the revocation, “provide[d] an adequate basis for appellate review” and were “adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement”); Wilson, 708 N.E.2d at 33-34 (holding that the trial court’s oral hearing statement—that it “f[ound] that [the] State has met its burden of proof and f[ound] the defendant ha[d] violated the terms and conditions of his probation as alleged in Item 3A, 3B, 3C, D, E, and F an

2025Our Supreme Court deemed this inadequate to satisfy the written statement requirement and “too cursory to be helpful.” Id. at 1165 .

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).

2013The Supreme Court explained the rationale behind the written statement requirement in Black v. Romano 471 U.S. 606, 614 (1985): “The written statement required by Gagnon and Morrissey helps to insure accurate factfinding with respect to any alleged violation and provides an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence.” In Clark v. State 580 N.E.2d 708, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), this court determined that a written transcript of the revocation hearing can meet the Morrissey written statement requirement.

2010"The purposes of the written statement requirement are to help insure accurate factfinding with respect to any alleged violation and to provide an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence'" Medicus v. State, 664 N.E.2d 1163, 1164 (Ind.1996) (quoting Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 613-14 , 105 S.Ct. 2254, 2258-59 , 85 L.Ed.2d 636 (1985)).

2018See Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618 , Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1711-CR-2597 | May 10, 2018 Page 8 of 9 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court’s written revocation order, which provided reasons for revocation, and hearing transcript, which provided evidence underlying revocation, “provide[d] an adequate basis for appellate review” and were “adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement.”); Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court’s oral hearing statement in which court found that “State has met its burden of proof and [f]ound the

2018See, e.g., Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 621 (the trial court’s written revocation order, which provided the reasons for revocation, and the hearing transcript, which provided the evidence underlying the revocation, “provide[d] an adequate basis for appellate review” and were “adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement”); Wilson, 708 N.E.2d at 33-34 (holding that the trial court’s oral hearing statement—that it “f[ound] that [the] State has met its burden of proof and f[ound] the defendant ha[d] violated the terms and conditions of his probation as alleged in Item 3A, 3B, 3C, D, E, and F an

2018See Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618 , Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1711-CR-2597 | May 10, 2018 Page 8 of 9 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (trial court’s written revocation order, which provided reasons for revocation, and hearing transcript, which provided evidence underlying revocation, “provide[d] an adequate basis for appellate review” and were “adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement.”); Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (trial court’s oral hearing statement in which court found that “State has met its burden of proof and [f]ound the

2013The Supreme Court explained the rationale behind the written statement requirement in Black v. Romano 471 U.S. 606, 614 (1985): “The written statement required by Gagnon and Morrissey helps to insure accurate factfinding with respect to any alleged violation and provides an adequate basis for review to determine if the decision rests on permissible grounds supported by the evidence.” In Clark v. State 580 N.E.2d 708, 711 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), this court determined that a written transcript of the revocation hearing can meet the Morrissey written statement requirement.

2020“The written statement requirement is a procedural device aimed at promoting accurate fact finding and ensuring the accurate review of revocation decisions.” Id.

2020“A transcript of the evidentiary hearing, although not the preferred way of fulfilling the writing requirement, is sufficient if it contains a clear statement of the trial court’s reasons for revoking probation.” Id. [12] The transcript of the evidentiary and sanctions hearings provides the written statement outlining the evidence relied on by the trial court in revoking Brooks’s probation.

2012Placing the transcript of the evidentiary hearing in the record may, however, be sufficient to satisfy the written 3 Where a defendant admits to violating probation, procedural due process safeguards, including the written statement requirement, are “unnecessary.” See Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98, 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

2012Placing the transcript of the evidentiary hearing in the record may, however, be sufficient to satisfy the written 3 Where a defendant admits to violating probation, procedural due process safeguards, including the written statement requirement, are “unnecessary.” See Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98, 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.