Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An Indiana Court of Appeals ruling today sets requirements for drug court terminations after a man’s participation
was terminated without minimum due process.
In Robert L. Gosha v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0912-CR-1210, the panel reversed Madison
Superior Judge Dennis D. Carroll’s denial of a motion to correct error and remanded to the trial court.
Robert Gosha pleaded guilty Nov. 20, 2007, to operating a motor vehicle while privileges are forfeited for life, a Class
C felony. The trial court sentenced him to eight years, with four years suspended to probation. Gosha admitted during a June
9, 2009, hearing to violating probation, and the court ordered the previously suspended four years be executed at the Indiana
Department of Correction. However, the judge stayed the sanctions pending successful completion of a drug court program. The
judge also ordered that if Gosha was removed from the program for any reason, the balance of the executed sentence would be
automatically transferred to the DOC.
After he was admitted to the drug court program, cocaine residue and drug paraphernalia were allegedly found at Gosha’s
house during a home visit. The drug court conducted a hearing and – without notice and without any evidence presented
– terminated Gosha’s participation.
Gosha’s request for an evidentiary hearing was denied, as was his motion to correct error.
He claimed he did not receive minimum due process during the drug court hearing, and even the state conceded he was denied
his right to due process. The appellate panel agreed.
Both the state and Gosha urged the appellate court to adopt the same due process requirements afforded defendants in probation-revocation
proceedings. The court found support for that argument in Hopper v. State, 546 N.E.2d 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989), trans.
denied.
Judge Edward Najam wrote, “The due process rights afforded a defendant in probation revocation proceedings, and which
we now require for defendants participating in a Drug Court Program, are described as follows: written notice of the claimed
violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body …. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549
(Ind. 1999).”
“We remand to the trial court with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing, with written notice to Gosha of
the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence, and the
right to confront and cross-examine witnesses,” the court wrote.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.