Yorel M. Wallace v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jul 29 2015, 10:17 am Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David T.A. Mattingly Gregory F. Zoeller Mattingly Legal, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Lafayette, Indiana Kelly A. Miklos Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Yorel M. Wallace, July 29, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1411-CR-815 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court. The Honorable Randy J. Williams. State of Indiana, Cause No. 79D01-1204-FB-4 Appellee-Plaintiff.

Darden, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case [1] Yorel M. Wallace appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. We

dismiss his appeal.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1411-CR-815 | July 29, 2015 Page 1 of 5

Issue [2] Wallace argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of

his probation. However, because there is no effective relief we can provide,

Wallace’s argument is moot, and his appeal is dismissed.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On January 3, 2013, Wallace pleaded guilty to one count of sexual misconduct

with a minor, a Class C felony. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9 (2007). He was

sentenced to five years, with four years executed (three years in the Department

of Correction and one year in the county community correction program) and

one year suspended to probation. Within a few days of his release from prison

on April 1, 2014, Wallace met with his probation officer. On May 7, 2014, the

State filed a petition to revoke Wallace’s probation alleging that he had failed to

maintain contact with the probation department and to initiate his one year of

supervision with the community correction program. On September 9, 2014,

the trial court held a hearing on the petition to revoke probation and took the

matter under advisement. A month later, the court issued its order finding that

Wallace had violated his probation. On October 21, 2014, a disposition hearing

was held, and Wallace was sentenced to 310 days in the Department of

Correction, which the court found was equal to time served. The court also

extended Wallace’s probation for one year so that he could complete a sex

offender treatment program. The court stated that upon Wallace’s completion

of the program, it would set aside any further probation. In addition, the court

set aside the condition that Wallace complete one year of community Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1411-CR-815 | July 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5

correction as a condition of probation. On November 21, 2014, Wallace filed

his notice of appeal challenging the court’s determination that he had violated

his probation. [4] During the pendency of this appeal, the State filed a second petition to revoke

Wallace’s probation on March 17, 2015. At a hearing in April 2015, Wallace

admitted to the allegations in the second petition to revoke, and the trial court

found that he had violated his probation by failing to complete the sex offender

treatment program as ordered and by failing to report for a drug screen

scheduled on February 10, 2015. The court sentenced Wallace to twenty-six

days at the county jail, with nine days of credit for time served and equivalent

good time credit, and ordered him discharged from probation as unsuccessful.

Discussion and Decision [5] In this appeal, Wallace contends there was insufficient evidence for the trial

court to find he had violated his probation under the first petition to revoke.

The State responds that this appeal is moot because Wallace has served his

sentence and has been terminated from probation. [6] This Court has previously noted:

[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real controversy between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions and this [C]ourt will not retain jurisdiction to decide them. Stated differently, when we are unable to provide effective relief upon an issue, the issue is deemed moot, and we will not reverse the trial court’s determination where absolutely no change in the status quo will result.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1411-CR-815 | July 29, 2015 Page 3 of 5

Bell v. State, 1 N.E.3d 190, 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). [7] In April 2015, while the present case was pending, Wallace admitted to

violating his probation by failing to complete the sex offender treatment

program and failing to report for a scheduled drug screen. The court sentenced

him to twenty-six days in the county jail, with eighteen days of credit time, and

ordered him discharged from probation. Wallace has served his sentence and

has been released from custody as well as probation. Thus, we are unable to

grant the relief he seeks because any decision we would render would result in

no change in the status quo. Accordingly, his appeal is moot. [8] Additionally, we note that although moot cases are usually dismissed, Indiana

courts have long recognized an exception to the general rule when the case

involves a question of great public interest. Id. Typically, cases falling into this

category raise important policy concerns and present issues that are likely to

recur. Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172, 174 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.

Nothing in the present case suggests that the issue raised by Wallace is of great

public interest.

Conclusion [9] For the reasons stated, we conclude Wallace’s appeal is moot and we dismiss

this case. [10] Dismissed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1411-CR-815 | July 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5 [11] Baker, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1411-CR-815 | July 29, 2015 Page 5 of 5