Arthur Delaney Scott v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 11, 2025
• Docket: 24A-CR-01771
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana Arthur Scott, FILED Appellant-Defendant Apr 11 2025, 9:27 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals v. and Tax Court

State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

April 11, 2025 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CR-1771 Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-1310-FB-1996

Opinion by Judge Weissmann Judges Pyle and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 1 of 9 Weissmann, Judge.

[1] Arthur Scott appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court

denied him due process by failing to provide an adequate written statement

explaining the revocation. Looking at the record as a whole, we find the trial

court’s statements satisfy the requirements of due process. We therefore affirm.

Facts [2] In late 2022, Scott was placed on a 5-year term of probation after serving part of

a 15-year sentence for three counts of dealing in cocaine. His probation required

him to adhere to various conditions, including compliance with Indiana law.

One year into his probationary term, the State filed a notice of probation

violation, later supplemented by an amended notice, alleging the following

violations under numbered paragraph 3:

A. Driving on a suspended license on January 4, 2024;

B. Driving on a suspended license and possessing a legend drug on January 11, 2024;

C. Failing to pay court costs;

D. Failing to pay probation fees; and

E. Committing six new criminal offenses in March 2024: possession of both methamphetamine and cocaine, dealing in both methamphetamine and cocaine, resisting law enforcement, and driving while suspended.

[3] The trial court then conducted an evidentiary hearing on the alleged probation

violation. At the outset, the State explained that it was not proceeding with the

allegations of paragraph 3E. Then, to support the allegations of paragraph 3A,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 2 of 9 the State called Officer Jerry Simmon, who testified that, on January 4, 2024,

he responded to a reported car accident. At the scene, he spoke with Scott, who

admitted to being involved. This prompted Officer Simmon to run Scott’s

information through the Bureau of Motor Vehicles database, which revealed

Scott’s license was suspended. The officer ticketed Scott for driving on a

suspended license.

[4] As to the allegations of paragraph 3B, the State presented a probable cause

affidavit describing a traffic stop on January 11, 2024, during which Scott was

again driving on a suspended license. During this stop, a search of Scott’s car

revealed a prescription bottle. It was labeled as Metoprolol but contained a

small plastic bag of green pills that looked different from the other pills in the

bottle. Scott claimed the green pills were Amoxicillin, a legend drug for which

Scott admitted he did not have a prescription.

[5] Based on these events, the affidavit alleged that Scott both unlawfully drove on

a suspended license and possessed a legend drug. The affidavit also noted that

Scott had a previous conviction for driving while suspended from July 2023,

which elevated the alleged offense to driving while suspended with a prior

suspension within 10 years. The State introduced court records of that July

2023 conviction at the evidentiary hearing.

[6] Scott briefly testified, alleging only that the probable cause affidavit from the

January 11 traffic stop had inaccurately reported the color of his car and the

positioning of the officer’s vehicle before the stop was initiated.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 3 of 9 [7] At the close of evidence, the trial court found that Scott violated his probation

“as alleged under paragraph 3A and 3B of the amended notice of probation

violation.” App. Vol. II, p. 21. This referenced the two instances of driving

while suspended and his possession of a legend drug. The court found no

violations as alleged in paragraphs 3C, 3D, and 3E.

[8] In imposing the sanction for the probation violation, the trial court specifically

noted that Scott’s original conviction was for drug offenses and that he had

committed a new drug offense. The court ultimately revoked three years of

Scott’s suspended sentence and ordered him to serve that time in the Indiana

Department of Correction, followed by two years of probation. Scott appeals

the revocation of his probation.

Discussion and Decision [9] On appeal, Scott claims he was denied due process because the trial court failed

to provide an adequate written statement explaining the revocation of his

probation. The State claims that Scott waived consideration of this issue

because he failed to object to the alleged error in the trial court. Finding the

State’s argument unavailing, we address Scott’s claim on the merits and affirm.

I. No Waiver [10] The State contends that Scott waived his due process claim by failing to raise it

in the trial court. The State quotes Terpstra v. State, 138 N.E.3d 278 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2019), for the proposition that “[d]ue process rights are subject to waiver,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 4 of 9 and claims are generally waived if raised for the first time on appeal.” Id. at 285-

86. But the State’s reliance on this language is misguided.

[11] In Terpstra, the defendant claimed, in relevant part, that the trial court violated

his due process rights in two ways: (1) by erring on several evidentiary matters,

and (2) by providing an inadequate written statement revoking his probation.

Noting these claims were not raised in the trial court, this Court recited the

general rule of waiver, as quoted by the State. But had the State read two

sentences further, it would have discovered our conclusions that, “apart from his

claim pertaining to the trial court’s judgment statement, [the defendant] waived his

due process claims.” Id. at 286 (emphasis added). We then addressed the merits

of the defendant’s claim that the trial court failed to specify the evidence relied

upon in its written statement of revocation—the same claim Scott raises here.

[12] A challenge to the trial court’s written statement of revocation relates to the

final sentence rather than procedural aspects of the revocation proceedings

leading up to that sentence. Challenges to a sentence need not be preserved by

prior objection. See Bell v. State, 59 N.E.3d 959, 962 (Ind. 2016) (noting that

appellate courts review “claims of sentencing error . . . without insisting that the

claim first be presented to the trial judge”).

[13] Our Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this principle in a similar context,

explaining that “[n]o objection was required to preserve a challenge to [the

defendant’s] fine, because a fine, like restitution, is part of the sentence.” Spells

v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 771 n.5 (Ind. 2024). And this Court has applied Spells

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 5 of 9 in the probation context, finding probation conditions are part of a sentence and

concluding a defendant “did not waive appellate review . . . despite his failure

to object” to them. Delgado v. State, 246 N.E.3d 1276, 1290 (Ind. Ct. App.

2024).

[14] As Scott’s claim relates to the trial court’s written statement on probation

revocation—a part of his sentence—we conclude it is properly before us. We

therefore reject the State’s argument of waiver and proceed to address the merits

of Scott’s claim.

II. No Denial of Due Process [15] Scott contends that the trial court’s written statement of revocation was

insufficient and, thus, violated his due process rights. “Whether a party was

denied due process is a question of law that we review de novo.” Hilligoss v. State,

45 N.E.3d 1228, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). After careful review of the record,

we disagree with Scott’s contention.

[16] Because probation revocation results in the loss of liberty, a probationer must be

afforded certain due process rights before revocation. Id. One such right is the

entitlement to a “written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied

on and the reasons for revoking.” Medicus v. State, 664 N.E.2d 1163, 1164 (Ind.

1996).

[17] Here, the trial court’s written statement reads, in relevant part: “Court finds

violation as alleged under paragraph 3A and 3B of the amended notice of

probation violation. No finding of violation under 3C, 3D, and 3E.” App. Vol. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 6 of 9 II, p. 21. Scott claims that this statement does not meet due process

requirements because it fails to explain the evidence relied upon by the court in

making its findings. He acknowledges, however, that oral statements made

during a revocation hearing can satisfy this written statement requirement, if the

transcript of the hearing is placed in the record, as was done here. See Hubbard v.

State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[18] During Scott’s revocation hearing, the trial court stated that it made its findings

“based on the evidence presented to the court.” Tr. p. 28. Though succinct, the

court’s statement is sufficient when read in the context of the full transcript,

which contains a clear record of the limited evidence presented: the testimony

of Officer Simmon, a probable cause affidavit, court records of Scott’s prior

driving while suspended conviction, and Scott’s brief testimony. Thus, the

transcript and the trial court’s reference to the “evidence presented” sufficiently

identifies the basis for the court’s ruling. Id.; see also Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 621

(finding written statement requirement satisfied where transcript in record

contained the evidence presented, even though the court never identified the

specific pieces of evidence it relied upon).

[19] Scott also contends that the written statement is too “cursory,” Appellant’s Br.,

p. 8, likening it to the statement of revocation in Medicus v. State, 664 N.E.2d

1163 (Ind. 1996). In that case, the trial court made the following oral finding at

the revocation hearing: “the Court’s going to find that the defendant has

violated his terms of probation. Any (inaudible) violation of the term of good

and lawful behavior.” Id. at 1164. Aside from this oral pronouncement, which

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 7 of 9 did not specify which of the several alleged violations the court found the

defendant had committed, the record contained no written statement explaining

the revocation. Our Supreme Court deemed this inadequate to satisfy the

written statement requirement and “too cursory to be helpful.” Id. at 1165. But

here, the reasons for the revocation are much clearer.

[20] The trial court’s written statement identifies the alleged violations it found Scott

had committed: those in paragraphs 3A and 3B, which specifically describe the

acts of driving on a suspended license and possessing a legend drug. The court’s

statement also notes that the court found Scott did not commit the allegations

in paragraphs 3C, 3D, and 3E. Providing further context, the court stated

during the sanction phase that Scott’s underlying conviction was for drug

offenses and that his new violation included another drug offense.

[21] Considering the trial court’s written statement together with the transcript of the

revocation hearing, which contained the court’s oral statements and the

straightforward evidence presented, the purposes of the written statement

requirement are satisfied. The court gave Scott notice of the revocation, ensured

accurate factfinding, and provided an adequate basis for appellate review. See id.

at 1164. We are left without any question as to which violations Scott was

found to have committed and the evidence relied upon by the court in making

such finding. For these reasons, we find no denial of due process in the trial

court’s written statement of revocation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 8 of 9 [22] Affirmed.

Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David W. Stone IV Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-1771 | April 11, 2025 Page 9 of 9