Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana
Date: 05-16-2021
Case Number: 21A-CR-00060
Judge: Robert R. Altice, Jr.
Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Defendant's Attorney:
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Leon Mehling with a operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life charge.
On November 14, 2019, the State charged Mehling with Level 5 felony
operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. On May 22, 2020,
he entered into a plea agreement that provided for a sentence of three years in
the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), with the first year to be served
on home detention and the remaining two years suspended to supervised
probation. The sentence was to run consecutive to sentences in three other
causes. The plea agreement further provided:
Defendant agrees that if [he] violates any term of his sentence,
including, but not limited to any violation of Community
Corrections and/or probation and/or failed alcohol/drug screen,
Defendant shall be required to serve his full underlying sentence
at the [DOC], with credit for any time previously served.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 37 (emphasis in original).
[4] On July 15, 2020, the trial court issued a Sentencing and Probation Order that
sentenced Mehling in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement andCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 9
outlined various probationary conditions, including: "Defendant shall not
commit a criminal offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence and shall notify the probation department within 24 hours of any such
event.†Id. at 62. Mehling signed an advisement form in which he
acknowledged reading and understanding the probationary conditions. On
August 20, 2020, Mehling began serving his sentence on home detention with
GPS monitoring.
[5] On the afternoon of September 1, 2020, Officer Rusty Drew of the Huntingburg
Police Department (HPD) and Deputy John Anderson of the Dubois County
Sheriff's Office assisted the Dubois County Community Corrections
Department with a home search of Mehling's residence. While there, they
learned Mehling was a habitual traffic violator.
[6] The next day, Officer Drew and Deputy Anderson, neither in uniform, were
riding together in Deputy Anderson's unmarked patrol vehicle. As Deputy
Anderson passed another vehicle, he observed that the driver of the car
appeared to be Mehling and mentioned this to Officer Drew. Deputy Anderson
changed lanes to position himself in front of the car and then moved to the
shoulder to allow the vehicle to pass, and as it did so, both officers observed
Mehling driving the car. Deputy Anderson radioed for Officer Kramer, the
Captain of HPD, to come to their location to conduct a traffic stop of Mehling.
Before he arrived, however, Mehling pulled into a parking lot, exited his
vehicle, and began walking away. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 9
[7] The officers followed Mehling into the lot, and Officer Drew exited the patrol
vehicle, identifying himself as an officer and instructing Mehling to stop, but
Mehling continued to walk away. Officer Drew then caught up to Mehling on
foot, placed him in handcuffs, and informed Mehling that he was being
detained for operating a motor vehicle with a lifetime suspension. Officer
Kramer and another officer arrived at the scene, Mehling was placed under
arrest, and Officer Kramer transported him to HPD.
[8] On September 2, the State charged Mehling under cause number 19D01-2009-
F5-777 (Cause 777) with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after
forfeiture of license for life. Based on the new offense charged in Cause 777,
the State filed a Petition to Revoke Home Detention with GPS Monitoring on
September 3 and a Petition to Revoke Probation on October 6.
[9] On November 17, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the petitions to revoke.
At the hearing, Deputy Anderson testified that, as he passed Mehling's car, he
looked directly at Mehling, who the deputy knew not only from the prior day's
home search but also from other interactions. Officer Drew testified that he
was a passenger in Deputy Anderson's vehicle, a pickup truck, and described
that, after Deputy Anderson pulled to the shoulder, he observed Mehling
driving a car that passed them. The probation officer assigned to Mehling's
case also testified, stating that, after his arrest for a new offense in Cause 777,
she requested that a petition to revoke be filed. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 9
[10] Mehling testified to his belief that the new arrest was unlawful under Ind. Code
§ 9-30-2-21 because "at the time Drew arrested me, neither Drew nor the driver,
who was detective John Anderson[,] were wearing distinctive officer uniforms
nor was the pickup truck clearly marked so that that a casual observer would
recognize it as a police vehicle.†Transcript at 23. Mehling also testified to his
belief that the filing of criminal charges does not warrant revocation. Mehling
urged the court to dismiss the petitions to revoke and asked the court to give
him another chance at community corrections.
[11] In closing argument, the State asserted that it had met its burden, noting that
the CCS for Cause 777, which was admitted into evidence at the revocation
hearing, "clearly indicates that Mr. Mehling has been arrested and charged for
the new offense.†Id. at 26. The court, in closing remarks, referred to the
sentencing order "that specifically states that you shall not commit a criminal
offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.†Id. at 27. The
court continued:
I understand your argument here [to be] that because these
officers were not in uniform and were not in a marked car, that
their arrest of you was unlawful. That's an issue for your new
case [Cause 777]. It really doesn't have any relevance to this
revocation matter because they don't have to arrest you, they
1 I.C. 9-30-2-2(a) states: "[A] law enforcement officer may not arrest or issue a traffic information and
summons to a person for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on
a highway unless at the time of the arrest the arresting officer is: (1) wearing a distinctive uniform and a
badge of authority; or (2) operating a motor vehicle that is clearly marked as a police vehicle; that will clearly
show the officer or the officer's vehicle to casual observations to be an officer or a police vehicle.â€Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 9
don't have to charge you, all they have to do is prove that you
committed a criminal offense by a preponderance of the
evidence. And I believe based upon the testimony that's been
provided here today that they have, in fact, proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that you committed the offense of
operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. Both officers
identified you as the person driving the vehicle and there was no
testimony that contradicted that.
Id. at 27-28.
[12] That same day, the court issued a Sentencing Order Revoking Home Detention
with GPS Monitoring and Probation. The order found that the State had
proven by a preponderance of the evidence "that [Mehling] did, in fact, commit
an offense†and thereby violated the terms of his home detention and probation.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 29. The court revoked Mehling's suspended
sentence and sentenced him to three years at the DOC, less credit time. In
December 2020, Mehling filed a motion to correct error, alleging that the
evidence was not sufficient to revoke his home detention and probation, which
motion the court denied the same day. Mehling now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[13] "Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial court's discretion, not a right to
which a criminal defendant is entitled.†Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188
(Ind. 2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation
conditions and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. Id. We
review the appeal from a trial court's probation determination and sanction for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 9
an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State,
963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). A probation hearing is civil in nature and
the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. The reviewing court considers only the evidence most favorable
to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the
credibility of witnesses. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). If
there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's
decision that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm.
Id.
[14] Mehling's argument "is not that he is not guilty†but, rather, is that his arrest2 in
Cause 777 was illegal under I.C. § 9-30-2-2 and "ideally†we would find that
charge to be void. Appellant's Brief at 8-9, 15. He acknowledges, however, that
"the standard, accepted remedy†for an illegal arrest "is evidence suppression.â€
Id. at 9. Therefore, he contends that the "only effective remedy†for the
claimed illegal police conduct "is to bar [the officers'] testimony†in this
revocation case. Id. His argument is misguided.
2 Mehling acknowledges that the police did not stop him and, rather, he "voluntarily stopped in the parking
lot.†Appellant's Brief at 14. He also recognizes that Officer Drew "detained†Mehling until Officer Kramer
arrived, but nevertheless suggests that "clearly Mehling's 'detention' constituted a de facto arrest.†Id. at 13.
We make no express determination regarding whether the detention constituted an arrest, but even assuming
it did, we find no error in the trial court's revocation of probation as explained in this decision.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 9
[15] The Sentencing and Probation Order issued on July 15, 2020, instructed
Mehling that he was subject to various conditions, including that he "not
commit a criminal offense[.]†Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 62. I.C. § 9-30-10-
17(a)(1) states that a person who operates a motor vehicle after the person's
driving privileges are forfeited for life commits a Level 5 felony. Here, Deputy
Anderson and Officer Drew each testified to observing Mehling driving on
September 2, 2020 and to having knowledge that Mehling did not possess
driving privileges.
[16] While Mehling argues that the officers' testimony in that regard should have
been excluded, he did not object as each officer testified about observing
Mehling driving on September 2, 2020. Thus, Mehling's claim that their
testimony should have been excluded is waived. Kyle v. State, 54 N.E.3d 439,
443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (failure to object to admission of evidence waives error
for appellate review). Furthermore, Mehling has not explained on what basis
their testimony should have been excluded. That is, his illegal-arrest theory
does not support his exclusion argument because the relevant testimony
concerned what the officers observed before the arrest. As the State observes,
"[w]hether his arrest was valid, constitutional, or outside of the officer's
statutory authority had no bearing on the ultimate question at issue in his Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 9
[revocation] evidentiary hearing—whether he had committed a new criminal
offense while under the court's supervision.â€3
Appellee's Brief at 15.
[17] Here, the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mehling
committed a new offense on September 2, 2020. Accordingly, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mehling violated his
probation and revoked his suspended sentence.
Outcome:
Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: Judgment affirmed.
Which court heard Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Robert R. Altice, Jr..
Who were the attorneys in Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 16, 2021.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
On November 14, 2019, the State charged Mehling with Level 5 felony
operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. On May 22, 2020,
he entered into a plea agreement that provided for a sentence of three years in
the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), with the first year to be served
on home detention and the remaining two years suspended to supervised
probation. The sentence was to run consecutive to sentences in three other
causes. The plea agreement further provided:
Defendant agrees that if [he] violates any term of his sentence,
including, but not limited to any violation of Community
Corrections and/or probation and/or failed alcohol/drug screen,
Defendant shall be required to serve his full underlying sentence
at the [DOC], with credit for any time previously served.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 37 (emphasis in original).
[4] On July 15, 2020, the trial court issued a Sentencing and Probation Order that
sentenced Mehling in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement andCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 9
outlined various probationary conditions, including: "Defendant shall not
commit a criminal offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence and shall notify the probation department within 24 hours of any such
event.†Id. at 62. Mehling signed an advisement form in which he
acknowledged reading and understanding the probationary conditions. On
August 20, 2020, Mehling began serving his sentence on home detention with
GPS monitoring.
[5] On the afternoon of September 1, 2020, Officer Rusty Drew of the Huntingburg
Police Department (HPD) and Deputy John Anderson of the Dubois County
Sheriff's Office assisted the Dubois County Community Corrections
Department with a home search of Mehling's residence. While there, they
learned Mehling was a habitual traffic violator.
[6] The next day, Officer Drew and Deputy Anderson, neither in uniform, were
riding together in Deputy Anderson's unmarked patrol vehicle. As Deputy
Anderson passed another vehicle, he observed that the driver of the car
appeared to be Mehling and mentioned this to Officer Drew. Deputy Anderson
changed lanes to position himself in front of the car and then moved to the
shoulder to allow the vehicle to pass, and as it did so, both officers observed
Mehling driving the car. Deputy Anderson radioed for Officer Kramer, the
Captain of HPD, to come to their location to conduct a traffic stop of Mehling.
Before he arrived, however, Mehling pulled into a parking lot, exited his
vehicle, and began walking away. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 9
[7] The officers followed Mehling into the lot, and Officer Drew exited the patrol
vehicle, identifying himself as an officer and instructing Mehling to stop, but
Mehling continued to walk away. Officer Drew then caught up to Mehling on
foot, placed him in handcuffs, and informed Mehling that he was being
detained for operating a motor vehicle with a lifetime suspension. Officer
Kramer and another officer arrived at the scene, Mehling was placed under
arrest, and Officer Kramer transported him to HPD.
[8] On September 2, the State charged Mehling under cause number 19D01-2009-
F5-777 (Cause 777) with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after
forfeiture of license for life. Based on the new offense charged in Cause 777,
the State filed a Petition to Revoke Home Detention with GPS Monitoring on
September 3 and a Petition to Revoke Probation on October 6.
[9] On November 17, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the petitions to revoke.
At the hearing, Deputy Anderson testified that, as he passed Mehling's car, he
looked directly at Mehling, who the deputy knew not only from the prior day's
home search but also from other interactions. Officer Drew testified that he
was a passenger in Deputy Anderson's vehicle, a pickup truck, and described
that, after Deputy Anderson pulled to the shoulder, he observed Mehling
driving a car that passed them. The probation officer assigned to Mehling's
case also testified, stating that, after his arrest for a new offense in Cause 777,
she requested that a petition to revoke be filed. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 9
[10] Mehling testified to his belief that the new arrest was unlawful under Ind. Code
§ 9-30-2-21 because "at the time Drew arrested me, neither Drew nor the driver,
who was detective John Anderson[,] were wearing distinctive officer uniforms
nor was the pickup truck clearly marked so that that a casual observer would
recognize it as a police vehicle.†Transcript at 23. Mehling also testified to his
belief that the filing of criminal charges does not warrant revocation. Mehling
urged the court to dismiss the petitions to revoke and asked the court to give
him another chance at community corrections.
[11] In closing argument, the State asserted that it had met its burden, noting that
the CCS for Cause 777, which was admitted into evidence at the revocation
hearing, "clearly indicates that Mr. Mehling has been arrested and charged for
the new offense.†Id. at 26. The court, in closing remarks, referred to the
sentencing order "that specifically states that you shall not commit a criminal
offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.†Id. at 27. The
court continued:
I understand your argument here [to be] that because these
officers were not in uniform and were not in a marked car, that
their arrest of you was unlawful. That's an issue for your new
case [Cause 777]. It really doesn't have any relevance to this
revocation matter because they don't have to arrest you, they
1 I.C. 9-30-2-2(a) states: "[A] law enforcement officer may not arrest or issue a traffic information and
summons to a person for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on
a highway unless at the time of the arrest the arresting officer is: (1) wearing a distinctive uniform and a
badge of authority; or (2) operating a motor vehicle that is clearly marked as a police vehicle; that will clearly
show the officer or the officer's vehicle to casual observations to be an officer or a police vehicle.â€Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 9
don't have to charge you, all they have to do is prove that you
committed a criminal offense by a preponderance of the
evidence. And I believe based upon the testimony that's been
provided here today that they have, in fact, proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that you committed the offense of
operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. Both officers
identified you as the person driving the vehicle and there was no
testimony that contradicted that.
Id. at 27-28.
[12] That same day, the court issued a Sentencing Order Revoking Home Detention
with GPS Monitoring and Probation. The order found that the State had
proven by a preponderance of the evidence "that [Mehling] did, in fact, commit
an offense†and thereby violated the terms of his home detention and probation.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 29. The court revoked Mehling's suspended
sentence and sentenced him to three years at the DOC, less credit time. In
December 2020, Mehling filed a motion to correct error, alleging that the
evidence was not sufficient to revoke his home detention and probation, which
motion the court denied the same day. Mehling now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[13] "Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial court's discretion, not a right to
which a criminal defendant is entitled.†Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188
(Ind. 2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation
conditions and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. Id. We
review the appeal from a trial court's probation determination and sanction for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 9
an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State,
963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). A probation hearing is civil in nature and
the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. The reviewing court considers only the evidence most favorable
to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the
credibility of witnesses. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). If
there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's
decision that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm.
Id.
[14] Mehling's argument "is not that he is not guilty†but, rather, is that his arrest2 in
Cause 777 was illegal under I.C. § 9-30-2-2 and "ideally†we would find that
charge to be void. Appellant's Brief at 8-9, 15. He acknowledges, however, that
"the standard, accepted remedy†for an illegal arrest "is evidence suppression.â€
Id. at 9. Therefore, he contends that the "only effective remedy†for the
claimed illegal police conduct "is to bar [the officers'] testimony†in this
revocation case. Id. His argument is misguided.
2 Mehling acknowledges that the police did not stop him and, rather, he "voluntarily stopped in the parking
lot.†Appellant's Brief at 14. He also recognizes that Officer Drew "detained†Mehling until Officer Kramer
arrived, but nevertheless suggests that "clearly Mehling's 'detention' constituted a de facto arrest.†Id. at 13.
We make no express determination regarding whether the detention constituted an arrest, but even assuming
it did, we find no error in the trial court's revocation of probation as explained in this decision.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 9
[15] The Sentencing and Probation Order issued on July 15, 2020, instructed
Mehling that he was subject to various conditions, including that he "not
commit a criminal offense[.]†Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 62. I.C. § 9-30-10-
17(a)(1) states that a person who operates a motor vehicle after the person's
driving privileges are forfeited for life commits a Level 5 felony. Here, Deputy
Anderson and Officer Drew each testified to observing Mehling driving on
September 2, 2020 and to having knowledge that Mehling did not possess
driving privileges.
[16] While Mehling argues that the officers' testimony in that regard should have
been excluded, he did not object as each officer testified about observing
Mehling driving on September 2, 2020. Thus, Mehling's claim that their
testimony should have been excluded is waived. Kyle v. State, 54 N.E.3d 439,
443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (failure to object to admission of evidence waives error
for appellate review). Furthermore, Mehling has not explained on what basis
their testimony should have been excluded. That is, his illegal-arrest theory
does not support his exclusion argument because the relevant testimony
concerned what the officers observed before the arrest. As the State observes,
"[w]hether his arrest was valid, constitutional, or outside of the officer's
statutory authority had no bearing on the ultimate question at issue in his Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 9
[revocation] evidentiary hearing—whether he had committed a new criminal
offense while under the court's supervision.â€3
Appellee's Brief at 15.
[17] Here, the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mehling
committed a new offense on September 2, 2020. Accordingly, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mehling violated his
probation and revoked his suspended sentence.
Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Leon Mehling with a operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life charge.
On November 14, 2019, the State charged Mehling with Level 5 felony
operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life. On May 22, 2020,
he entered into a plea agreement that provided for a sentence of three years in
the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), with the first year to be served
on home detention and the remaining two years suspended to supervised
probation. The sentence was to run consecutive to sentences in three other
causes. The plea agreement further provided:
Defendant agrees that if [he] violates any term of his sentence,
including, but not limited to any violation of Community
Corrections and/or probation and/or failed alcohol/drug screen,
Defendant shall be required to serve his full underlying sentence
at the [DOC], with credit for any time previously served.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 37 (emphasis in original).
[4] On July 15, 2020, the trial court issued a Sentencing and Probation Order that
sentenced Mehling in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement andCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 3 of 9
outlined various probationary conditions, including: "Defendant shall not
commit a criminal offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the
evidence and shall notify the probation department within 24 hours of any such
event.†Id. at 62. Mehling signed an advisement form in which he
acknowledged reading and understanding the probationary conditions. On
August 20, 2020, Mehling began serving his sentence on home detention with
GPS monitoring.
[5] On the afternoon of September 1, 2020, Officer Rusty Drew of the Huntingburg
Police Department (HPD) and Deputy John Anderson of the Dubois County
Sheriff's Office assisted the Dubois County Community Corrections
Department with a home search of Mehling's residence. While there, they
learned Mehling was a habitual traffic violator.
[6] The next day, Officer Drew and Deputy Anderson, neither in uniform, were
riding together in Deputy Anderson's unmarked patrol vehicle. As Deputy
Anderson passed another vehicle, he observed that the driver of the car
appeared to be Mehling and mentioned this to Officer Drew. Deputy Anderson
changed lanes to position himself in front of the car and then moved to the
shoulder to allow the vehicle to pass, and as it did so, both officers observed
Mehling driving the car. Deputy Anderson radioed for Officer Kramer, the
Captain of HPD, to come to their location to conduct a traffic stop of Mehling.
Before he arrived, however, Mehling pulled into a parking lot, exited his
vehicle, and began walking away. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 4 of 9
[7] The officers followed Mehling into the lot, and Officer Drew exited the patrol
vehicle, identifying himself as an officer and instructing Mehling to stop, but
Mehling continued to walk away. Officer Drew then caught up to Mehling on
foot, placed him in handcuffs, and informed Mehling that he was being
detained for operating a motor vehicle with a lifetime suspension. Officer
Kramer and another officer arrived at the scene, Mehling was placed under
arrest, and Officer Kramer transported him to HPD.
[8] On September 2, the State charged Mehling under cause number 19D01-2009-
F5-777 (Cause 777) with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after
forfeiture of license for life. Based on the new offense charged in Cause 777,
the State filed a Petition to Revoke Home Detention with GPS Monitoring on
September 3 and a Petition to Revoke Probation on October 6.
[9] On November 17, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the petitions to revoke.
At the hearing, Deputy Anderson testified that, as he passed Mehling's car, he
looked directly at Mehling, who the deputy knew not only from the prior day's
home search but also from other interactions. Officer Drew testified that he
was a passenger in Deputy Anderson's vehicle, a pickup truck, and described
that, after Deputy Anderson pulled to the shoulder, he observed Mehling
driving a car that passed them. The probation officer assigned to Mehling's
case also testified, stating that, after his arrest for a new offense in Cause 777,
she requested that a petition to revoke be filed. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 5 of 9
[10] Mehling testified to his belief that the new arrest was unlawful under Ind. Code
§ 9-30-2-21 because "at the time Drew arrested me, neither Drew nor the driver,
who was detective John Anderson[,] were wearing distinctive officer uniforms
nor was the pickup truck clearly marked so that that a casual observer would
recognize it as a police vehicle.†Transcript at 23. Mehling also testified to his
belief that the filing of criminal charges does not warrant revocation. Mehling
urged the court to dismiss the petitions to revoke and asked the court to give
him another chance at community corrections.
[11] In closing argument, the State asserted that it had met its burden, noting that
the CCS for Cause 777, which was admitted into evidence at the revocation
hearing, "clearly indicates that Mr. Mehling has been arrested and charged for
the new offense.†Id. at 26. The court, in closing remarks, referred to the
sentencing order "that specifically states that you shall not commit a criminal
offense that can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.†Id. at 27. The
court continued:
I understand your argument here [to be] that because these
officers were not in uniform and were not in a marked car, that
their arrest of you was unlawful. That's an issue for your new
case [Cause 777]. It really doesn't have any relevance to this
revocation matter because they don't have to arrest you, they
1 I.C. 9-30-2-2(a) states: "[A] law enforcement officer may not arrest or issue a traffic information and
summons to a person for a violation of an Indiana law regulating the use and operation of a motor vehicle on
a highway unless at the time of the arrest the arresting officer is: (1) wearing a distinctive uniform and a
badge of authority; or (2) operating a motor vehicle that is clearly marked as a police vehicle; that will clearly
show the officer or the officer's vehicle to casual observations to be an officer or a police vehicle.â€Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 6 of 9
don't have to charge you, all they have to do is prove that you
committed a criminal offense by a preponderance of the
evidence. And I believe based upon the testimony that's been
provided here today that they have, in fact, proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that you committed the offense of
operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator. Both officers
identified you as the person driving the vehicle and there was no
testimony that contradicted that.
Id. at 27-28.
[12] That same day, the court issued a Sentencing Order Revoking Home Detention
with GPS Monitoring and Probation. The order found that the State had
proven by a preponderance of the evidence "that [Mehling] did, in fact, commit
an offense†and thereby violated the terms of his home detention and probation.
Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 29. The court revoked Mehling's suspended
sentence and sentenced him to three years at the DOC, less credit time. In
December 2020, Mehling filed a motion to correct error, alleging that the
evidence was not sufficient to revoke his home detention and probation, which
motion the court denied the same day. Mehling now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[13] "Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial court's discretion, not a right to
which a criminal defendant is entitled.†Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188
(Ind. 2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation
conditions and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. Id. We
review the appeal from a trial court's probation determination and sanction for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 7 of 9
an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State,
963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). A probation hearing is civil in nature and
the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the
evidence. Id. The reviewing court considers only the evidence most favorable
to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the
credibility of witnesses. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). If
there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's
decision that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm.
Id.
[14] Mehling's argument "is not that he is not guilty†but, rather, is that his arrest2 in
Cause 777 was illegal under I.C. § 9-30-2-2 and "ideally†we would find that
charge to be void. Appellant's Brief at 8-9, 15. He acknowledges, however, that
"the standard, accepted remedy†for an illegal arrest "is evidence suppression.â€
Id. at 9. Therefore, he contends that the "only effective remedy†for the
claimed illegal police conduct "is to bar [the officers'] testimony†in this
revocation case. Id. His argument is misguided.
2 Mehling acknowledges that the police did not stop him and, rather, he "voluntarily stopped in the parking
lot.†Appellant's Brief at 14. He also recognizes that Officer Drew "detained†Mehling until Officer Kramer
arrived, but nevertheless suggests that "clearly Mehling's 'detention' constituted a de facto arrest.†Id. at 13.
We make no express determination regarding whether the detention constituted an arrest, but even assuming
it did, we find no error in the trial court's revocation of probation as explained in this decision.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 8 of 9
[15] The Sentencing and Probation Order issued on July 15, 2020, instructed
Mehling that he was subject to various conditions, including that he "not
commit a criminal offense[.]†Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 62. I.C. § 9-30-10-
17(a)(1) states that a person who operates a motor vehicle after the person's
driving privileges are forfeited for life commits a Level 5 felony. Here, Deputy
Anderson and Officer Drew each testified to observing Mehling driving on
September 2, 2020 and to having knowledge that Mehling did not possess
driving privileges.
[16] While Mehling argues that the officers' testimony in that regard should have
been excluded, he did not object as each officer testified about observing
Mehling driving on September 2, 2020. Thus, Mehling's claim that their
testimony should have been excluded is waived. Kyle v. State, 54 N.E.3d 439,
443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (failure to object to admission of evidence waives error
for appellate review). Furthermore, Mehling has not explained on what basis
their testimony should have been excluded. That is, his illegal-arrest theory
does not support his exclusion argument because the relevant testimony
concerned what the officers observed before the arrest. As the State observes,
"[w]hether his arrest was valid, constitutional, or outside of the officer's
statutory authority had no bearing on the ultimate question at issue in his Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 21A-CR-60 | May 12, 2021 Page 9 of 9
[revocation] evidentiary hearing—whether he had committed a new criminal
offense while under the court's supervision.â€3
Appellee's Brief at 15.
[17] Here, the evidence established by a preponderance of the evidence that Mehling
committed a new offense on September 2, 2020. Accordingly, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that Mehling violated his
probation and revoked his suspended sentence.
Outcome:
Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
The outcome was: Judgment affirmed.
Which court heard Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA, IN. The presiding judge was Robert R. Altice, Jr..
Who were the attorneys in Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana?
Plaintiff's attorney: Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Courtney Staton Deputy Attorney General. Defendant's attorney: Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was Leon O. Mehling v. State of Indiana decided?
This case was decided on May 16, 2021.