Holland motion in Indiana

2025Co., 524 N.E.2d 1316, 1319 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), the record here is silent as to whether the sanction was meant to compensate for legal services, punish Holland’s conduct, or serve some other purpose. [20] Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the $3,000 sanction and remand so the trial court may further consider and explain the sanction’s basis and amount.2 2 Because we remand, we do not address Holland’s claim that sanctions were erroneously imposed without notice or a hearing.

2019DeBartolo Corp., 676 N.E.2d 395, 399 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

2016See Johnson, 692 N.E.2d at 486-87 (holding that probationer waived appellate argument that conditions of probation were not proven where he failed to object on these grounds at the revocation hearing); Bryce v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1094, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (same), trans. denied. [8] Moreover, even if Holland’s issue was not waived, it would have been within the court’s authority to revoke his probation solely because he violated the terms of his community corrections placement.

2016See I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5(4) (2015) (providing that if a person directly placed in a community corrections program violates the placement terms, the community corrections director may request that the court revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the remainder of the person’s sentence); McCauley, 22 N.E.3d at 747 (holding that prior version of Section 35-38-2.6-56 provides the 5 Although Holland was on home detention at the time, “the probationary period begins immediately after sentencing and ends at the conclusion of the probationary phases

2016See Johnson, 692 N.E.2d at 486-87 (holding that probationer waived appellate argument that conditions of probation were not proven where he failed to object on these grounds at the revocation hearing); Bryce v. State, 545 N.E.2d 1094, 1098 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (same), trans. denied. [8] Moreover, even if Holland’s issue was not waived, it would have been within the court’s authority to revoke his probation solely because he violated the terms of his community corrections placement.

2016See I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5(4) (2015) (providing that if a person directly placed in a community corrections program violates the placement terms, the community corrections director may request that the court revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the remainder of the person’s sentence); McCauley, 22 N.E.3d at 747 (holding that prior version of Section 35-38-2.6-56 provides the 5 Although Holland was on home detention at the time, “the probationary period begins immediately after sentencing and ends at the conclusion of the probationary phases

2013Countrywide argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Holland was automatically entitled to summary judgment as result of Countrywide’s failure to file a response to Holland’s motion for summary judgment. “[T]he lack of opposition to another’s motion for summary judgment does not result in ‘an automatic summary judgment’ because the ‘moving party still bears the burden of showing the propriety of summary judgment.’ ” Alexander v. Dowell, 669 N.E.2d 436, 439 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Carroll v. Lordy, 431 N.E.2d 118, 121 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)).

2013Countrywide argues that the trial court erred in concluding that Holland was automatically entitled to summary judgment as result of Countrywide’s failure to file a response to Holland’s motion for summary judgment. “[T]he lack of opposition to another’s motion for summary judgment does not result in ‘an automatic summary judgment’ because the ‘moving party still bears the burden of showing the propriety of summary judgment.’ ” Alexander v. Dowell, 669 N.E.2d 436, 439 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (quoting Carroll v. Lordy, 431 N.E.2d 118, 121 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)).

2013See Cole v. Holt, 725 N.E.2d 145 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. 3 .