Rodney D. Lloyd v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jun 29 2016, 8:51 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Timothy P. Broden Gregory F. Zoeller
Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rodney D. Lloyd, June 29, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
79A04-1510-CR-1800
v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jon P. Phillips,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Pro Tempore
Trial Court Cause Nos.
79D05-1405-CM-291,
79D05-1307-FD-317
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1510-CR-1800 | June 29, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] Rodney Lloyd appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues
that the trial court improperly admitted a probable cause affidavit into evidence.
Finding that any error was harmless, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On November 13, 2013, Lloyd pleaded guilty to two criminal charges: class D
felony receiving stolen property and class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun
without a license. The trial court sentenced Lloyd to an aggregate term of 910
days, of which 262 days had already been served. The balance of 648 days
would be served on unsupervised probation.
[3] On July 1, 2014, Lloyd pleaded guilty to another crime: class B misdemeanor
false informing. The trial court sentenced Lloyd to a further 180-day sentence.
However, pursuant to a plea agreement, the court ordered that only 68 days be
served; the remaining 112 days were suspended to unsupervised probation. The
terms of Lloyd’s probation included good and lawful behavior for both the 2013
and 2014 convictions.
[4] In November 2014, the State filed petitions to revoke Lloyd’s probation in both
causes because he had been arrested and charged with armed robbery and
several other related offenses. The trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s
petitions on September 23, 2015, at which Lloyd testified. He admitted that he
had been convicted and sentenced on the armed robbery charge and that he had
been on probation when he committed that offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1510-CR-1800 | June 29, 2016 Page 2 of 4
[5] During the hearing, the trial court also admitted the affidavit of probable cause
from the new armed robbery case. The author of this document is identified
only as “Affiant,” with no indication of who “Affiant” is, and the signature on
the document is illegible.
[6] The trial court found that Lloyd had violated the terms of his probation. It
revoked Lloyd’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his
sentences. Lloyd now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Lloyd argues that the trial court erred by admitting the affidavit of probable
cause into evidence. He argues that the document bore insufficient indicia of
reliability. In short, he questions the document’s trustworthiness.
[8] Probation is not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled; instead, it is a
matter that is left to the discretion of a trial court. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d
184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Revocation of probation is a two-step process. Parker v.
State, 676 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). First, a trial court must
make the factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation has
actually occurred. Id. Second, after a violation of the conditions of probation
has been established, a trial court must then determine whether the violation
warrants revocation of the probation. Id. By statute, this determination is made
in an evidentiary hearing unless the probationer admits to the violation. Ind.
Code § 35-38-2-3. In a probation revocation hearing, a defendant, though
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1510-CR-1800 | June 29, 2016 Page 3 of 4
endowed with certain due process rights, is not afforded the same formal
procedural and evidentiary rules that must be followed at criminal trials.
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 789 (1973). Our Supreme Court has stated
that, in probation revocation hearings, courts may consider any relevant
evidence that bears indicia of reliability, including reliable hearsay. Cox v. State,
706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999).
[9] Even if we accepted Lloyd’s argument that the admission of the probable cause
affidavit into evidence was error, we find that it would be harmless error. See,
e.g., Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (explaining that
admission of evidence in a probation revocation hearing is harmless error if
there are independent grounds for a court to revoke probation). It was
unnecessary for the trial court to rely upon the affidavit, as Lloyd admitted
under oath that he committed the armed robbery offense while on probation.
The trial court was aware of the problematic nature of the affidavit, but stated,
“I don’t even know that I need to necessarily rely so much on [the affidavit] . . .
He was clearly on probation for both these cases at the time this incident
occurred and there’s twelve people who found beyond a reasonable doubt that
the defendant did commit the crime.” Tr. p. 12-13. Therefore, the trial court
did not need to rely on the probable cause affidavit to find that Lloyd had
violated probation, and any error was harmless.
[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A04-1510-CR-1800 | June 29, 2016 Page 4 of 4