Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA man failed to persuade the Indiana Court of Appeals that revocation of his probation on a drug charge was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because his placement in community corrections had already been revoked.
The panel affirmed revocation of probation in Cory L. Montgomery v. State of Indiana, 02A04-1511-CR-2013. Montgomery’s placement in a community corrections program had been part of his sentence for Class B felony dealing cocaine or a narcotic drug, but he committed multiple probation violations, according to the record, by attempting to fake or failing to report for drug screens.
Writing for the panel, Judge Edward Najam rejected the premise of Montgomery’s argument in a six-page order.
"We cannot agree that the trial court’s subsequent revocation of Montgomery’s probation was barred by its prior revocation of his placement in the [community corrections] transition program. In the language of res judicata, the matter in issue before the court during the probation revocation proceedings — Montgomery’s placement on probation — was simply not the same matter in issue before the court during the revocation proceedings on his placement in the transition program,” Najam wrote. “And we are not persuaded by Montgomery’s suggestion that the court was obliged to consider and determine those two
separate matters once and for all during the revocation proceedings for his placement in the transition program.
"We conclude that the trial court’s revocation of Montgomery’s probation was not barred by res judicata and was not otherwise an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment."
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.