Probation revocation affirmed following new federal offenses

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed the revocation of man’s probation after he committed multiple new offenses.

While serving time on probation for two felony convictions of dealing cocaine, Jason Anderson’s violated the terms of his probation. He was subsequently ordered to serve 10 years in the Department of Correction for his Class B felony conviction and a concurrent term of 20 years for his Class A felony conviction.

Anderson was later granted a motion to modify his sentence in 2011, but his probation was revoked again after he violated the conditions by committing new drug-related offenses. The state additionally alleged in 2017 that Anderson had committed new federal offenses of felony possession of firearms, for which he had pleaded guilty in a federal district court.

Anderson’s motion to dismiss the second revocation petition was denied, and he was ordered to serve another 10 years in the DOC. However, he filed a motion to correct error alleging the trial court had lost jurisdiction over him because the original sentencing order, that accepted his plea agreement “created an unreasonable delay in sentencing and the sentence on Count II . . . was, consequently, without judicial authority and therefore void.”

That motion was ultimately denied, and Anderson appealed.

In affirming the trial court in Jason L. Anderson v. State of Indiana,19A-CR-2003, the appellate panel first rejected Anderson’s argument that “the trial court erred as a matter of law when it failed to sentence him on Count II within thirty days of accepting his plea agreement in 2001.” Judge Edward Najam pointed to language in the 2001 agreement holding that, as to Count II, Anderson “specifically waives his right to be sentenced within thirty (30) days … .”

Additionally, the court concluded Anderson was relying on an “obvious typographical error to assert that the court erred when it placed him on probation.”

The appellate panel further concluded that although the state incorrectly assumed that evidence of Anderson’s date of arrest was equivalent to the dates of the alleged offenses, it had admitted into evidence, without objection, certified documents from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana regarding Anderson’s federal firearms offenses.

“Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence that Anderson committed the federal firearms offenses during his probationary period,” Najam wrote for the appellate panel. “Sometime after March 24, 2017, and prior to August 2, 2018, Anderson possessed and admitted to possessing firearms in violation of federal law. As Anderson’s violation of federal law occurred during his probation, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of his probation.”