10 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kincaid v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 2007See Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh’g denied. | 3 | 3 |
McQueen v. Stategreen2 sentences2018We note that “a violation of a condition of community corrections does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis.” McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 2017In McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), we stated that “[r]evocation proceedings are based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether a defendant has complied with these conditions is a question of fact and not an adjudication of guilt.” We also held in McQueen that a violation of a condition of community corrections does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis. 862 N.E.2d at 1244 . | 2 | 3 |
Shumate v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 2000See Shumate v. State, 718 N.E.2d 1133, 1134 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). | 2 | 2 |
Culley v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Hence, we hold that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis.” 385 N.E.2d at 488 (original emphasis). 1981Hence, we hold that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis.” 385 N.E.2d at 488 (original emphasis). | 2 | 2 |
Childers v. Stategreen2 sentences2017In Childers v. State, 656 N.E.2d 514, 517 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied, we held that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis and that the double jeopardy clause was not implicated by a second probation revocation hearing. 1999Id. at 517 . | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 1 |
Ashba v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 1 |
Ronald G. Becker v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 2017“It applies ‘where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties.’” Id. (quoting Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., 271 Ind. 422, 426 , 393 N.E.2d 163, 167 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc.green2 sentences2017“It applies ‘where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties.’” Id. (quoting Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., 271 Ind. 422, 426 , 393 N.E.2d 163, 167 (1979)). 2017“It applies ‘where there has been a final adjudication on the merits of the same issue between the same parties.’” Id. (quoting Gayheart v. Newnam Foundry Co., Inc., 271 Ind. 422, 426 , 393 N.E.2d 163, 167 (1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana State Ethics Commission, Office of Inspector General, and David Thomas, in his Official Capacity as Inspector General v. Patricia Sanchezgreen1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 1 |
Kincaid v. Stategreen1 sentence2005In Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), vacated on other grounds by 778 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied 540 U.S. 818 , 124 S.Ct. 84 , 157 LEd.2d 35 (2003), for example, another panel of this Court held that "a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis." In so doing, the Kincaid court noted that "[this conclusion derives from the fact that revocation proceedings may be based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wiggins v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Elgin v. Bunnell
green
1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Ashba v. State
green
1 sentence2017See also Johnson v. State, 512 N.E.2d 1090, 1092 (Ind. 1987) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in placing him in double jeopardy because of the State’s moving forward in a probation Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1603-CR-551 | June 29, 2017 Page 9 of 14 revocation proceeding on the same charges in the criminal case); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis), reh’g denied; Shumate v. State, 718 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cox v. State
green
1 sentence2007Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549-51 . *1244 Based on the similarities between probation and community corrections programs, we hold that a violation of a condition of community corrections does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
O'Dell v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2005In Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), vacated on other grounds by 778 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied 540 U.S. 818 , 124 S.Ct. 84 , 157 LEd.2d 35 (2003), for example, another panel of this Court held that "a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis." In so doing, the Kincaid court noted that "[this conclusion derives from the fact that revocation proceedings may be based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bay Harbour Associates, L.P. v. Leucadia National Corp.
neutral
2 sentences2005In Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), vacated on other grounds by 778 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied 540 U.S. 818 , 124 S.Ct. 84 , 157 LEd.2d 35 (2003), for example, another panel of this Court held that "a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis." In so doing, the Kincaid court noted that "[this conclusion derives from the fact that revocation proceedings may be based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether 2005In Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), vacated on other grounds by 778 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied 540 U.S. 818 , 124 S.Ct. 84 , 157 LEd.2d 35 (2003), for example, another panel of this Court held that "a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis." In so doing, the Kincaid court noted that "[this conclusion derives from the fact that revocation proceedings may be based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kincaid v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713, 716 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), vacated on other grounds by 778 N.E.2d 789 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied, cert. denied 540 U.S. 818 , 124 S.Ct. 84 , 157 LEd.2d 35 (2003), for example, another panel of this Court held that "a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis." In so doing, the Kincaid court noted that "[this conclusion derives from the fact that revocation proceedings may be based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the finding of whether | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.