Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 07-13-2016

Case Style: Paul S. Freeman v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 02A05-1512-CR-2351

Judge: John G. Baker

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Larry D. Allen - Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:



Steve Miller


Description: On November 13, 2014, Freeman pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony theft. As
part of his plea agreement, Freeman received a sentence of 1 year and 183 days,
fully suspended to probation. Among the terms of Freeman’s probation was a
requirement that he “behave well and report for supervision as instructed.”
Appellant’s App. p. 25. On August 11, 2015, Freeman failed to report for a
scheduled probation appointment. That same day, the State filed a motion to
revoke his probation and a warrant was issued for Freeman’s arrest.
[3] On September 23, 2015, Detective Steven Espinoza was investigating a possible
stolen vehicle. As Detective Espinoza was driving his unmarked police cruiser,
he noticed a vehicle that matched the description of the vehicle reported stolen.
He turned his police cruiser around and followed the other vehicle. Freeman
was a passenger in the other vehicle, which pulled into a parking lot. Detective
Espinoza followed the vehicle, but by the time he reached it, Freeman had
jumped out and run down the street. Another passenger informed the detective
that Freeman had fled because he had an outstanding arrest warrant. Detective
Espinoza pursued Freeman and eventually observed him jumping over a
retaining wall. The detective ordered Freeman to stop, and Freeman complied.
When Freeman was asked why he had fled, Freeman admitted that he had an

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1512-CR-2351 | July 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5
outstanding warrant for his arrest. Freeman was placed under arrest and, when
searching him incident to arrest, the officers recovered knives and a white
powdery substance later determined to be pseudoephedrine.
[4] On October 5, 2015, the probation office filed an amended motion to revoke
Freeman’s probation, alleging that in addition to failing to report on August 11,
Freeman had failed to maintain good behavior by fleeing from the police on
September 23. The trial court held the revocation hearing on November 30,
2015. At the hearing, Freeman admitted that he had failed to report on August
11. The trial court also found circumstantial evidence to support the allegation
that Freeman had failed to maintain good behavior. Based on these two
violations, the trial court revoked Freeman’s probation and ordered him to
serve the balance of his sentence at the Department of Correction. Freeman
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion rather than a right to
which a defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
The revocation of probation is in the nature of a civil action rather than a
criminal one; thus, the alleged violation need be proved only by a
preponderance of the evidence. Cain v. State, 30 N.E.3d 728, 732 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015), trans. denied. Violation of a single term or condition of probation is
sufficient to revoke probation. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A05-1512-CR-2351 | July 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[6] Freeman’s sole argument on appeal is that the evidence is insufficient to
support the revocation of probation. It is undisputed that he was required to
report to all scheduled probation appointments. He admittedly failed to do so
on August 11, 2015. This admission, alone, is sufficient evidence to support the
trial court’s decision to revoke his probation. Id.
[7] In addition, the trial court found that Freeman violated the term of probation
requiring him to maintain good behavior. This Court has held that to show a
violation of this probation term, the State need only show by a preponderance
of the evidence that unlawful activity has occurred. Brown v. State, 458 N.E.2d
245, 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983). Freeman argues that because the police cruiser
was unmarked and he stopped when directly ordered to do so by the detective,
there is insufficient evidence establishing that he knowingly fled from law
enforcement. But there is also evidence that he was aware that Detective
Espinoza was a law enforcement officer—first, another passenger in Freeman’s
vehicle told the detective that Freeman had fled because he had an outstanding
arrest warrant; second, Freeman told the detective the same thing when asked
why he had fled. Even if that evidence does not decisively establish that
Freeman engaged in unlawful behavior, the State also offered evidence that
Freeman possessed over ten grams of pseudoephedrine at the time he was
arrested, which constitutes at least a Level 6 felony. Ind. Code § 35-48-4
14.5(b). Therefore, the trial court did not err by finding that the State had
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Freeman had engaged in
unlawful activity and, consequently, had failed to maintain good behavior.

Outcome:

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

View Case

Firm Video



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: