Neal McNamara
November 25, 2007 09:53 pm
—
The Indiana Court of Appeals released a decision denying an Anderson man’s appeal that the Madison County Superior Court 1 erred when it ruled he should go to jail for a probation violation.
Dion T. Wright was ordered in early 2007 to serve 30 months of a previously suspended sentence after he violated his probation for a third time since being convicted in May 2000 for possession of cocaine, and resisting law enforcement, according to court documents.
Wright appealed the 30-month sentence, saying that the court shouldn’t have admitted as evidence an affidavit that said he failed a drug test, and that his due process rights were violated.
Wright, formerly of Nell Street, was initially arrested in July 1999, according to published reports, near the intersection of Madison Avenue and 11th Street after police found five grams of cocaine on him. Police had stopped Wright because of a warrant issued against the man for fraud.
Wright was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for the cocaine charge, and one year, to run concurrently, for the resisting arrest charge. He was also given probation, the terms of which required him to complete a work release program, to abstain from alcohol and drug use and to submit to random drug testing, according to the decision.
In July 2001, Wright was sent to jail for 45 days for a probation violation that included driving with a suspended license and failing to complete a work release program. Four months later, Wright was picked up on a probation violation for consuming alcohol, violating curfew, and lying to a police officer, according to the decision.
A third violation occurred in January 2004, where Wright allegedly tested positive for marijuana and cocaine. Wright failed to appear in court for the third violation, and was arrested just this past January, according to the court.
During an evidentiary hearing in February 2007, an affidavit, written by Jeff Retz, the scientific director at Witham Memorial Hospital, that said Wright tested positive for cocaine, was admitted as evidence. Wright objected because he said he was not afforded the right to cross examine Retz.
The appeals court found that Wright’s rights were not violated because, “courts may admit evidence during probation hearings that would not be permitted in a full-blown criminal trial,” read the decision, quoting state statute.
Wright also said that the 30-month sentence was improper because of positive aspects of his life, including military service, employment, and family support. The appeals court found that Superior Court took into consideration Wright’s other qualities before he was sentenced.
Copyright © 1999-2010 cnhi, inc.