Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A man who argued he couldn’t comply with the conditions of his probation because he was taken into immigration custody upon his release from prison has failed to convince the Court of Appeals of Indiana that a trial court erred in finding he violated his probation.
Following a drug conviction, Manuel Trejo was sentenced in May 2008 to eight years in the Indiana Department of Correction, with five years suspended to probation.
Standard Condition 1 of his probation stated that he was to meet with the probation department immediately.
Presumably, Trejo was taken into DOC custody after sentencing to begin serving the executed portion of his sentence. Then 18 months later, the state filed a petition to revoke his probation, claiming he violated Standard Condition 1.
The state noted Trejo was in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and was awaiting deportation. The Noble Circuit Court issued a warrant for Trejo’s arrest, but he wasn’t arrested until August 2022 — 13 years later.
Chief Probation Officer Stacey Beam testified at a factfinding hearing that she did not know when Trejo was released from the DOC but that he was in ICE custody in November 2009. She also testified that she could find no record of Trejo contacting the probation department.
The trial court found that Trejo violated Standard Condition 1 of his probation and ordered him to serve 2½ years of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. The court noted that Trejo hadn’t made an effort to contact the probation department in 13 years.
Trejo challenged the trial court’s step-one determination of probation revocation, arguing the state presented insufficient evidence to prove he violated his probation.
But the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Trejo violated Standard Condition 1 of his probation by failing to meet with the probation department once he was no longer in DOC custody in November 2009.
“Trejo’s inability to meet with the probation department because he was in ICE custody at the time has no bearing on whether the probation violation occurred,” Judge Leanna Weissmann wrote. “Instead, his alleged inability to comply with Standard Condition 1 bears on the trial court’s sanction for the violation, which Trejo does not challenge.”
The case is Manuel Trejo v. State of Indiana, 22A-CR-2667.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.