These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).
APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge. Cause No. 29D03-1204-FC-3235.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: MICHAEL FRISCHKORN, Frischkorn Law LLC, Fortville, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, JUSTIN F. ROEBEL, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
KIRSCH, Judge. FRIEDLANDER, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Jonathon Harris (" Harris" ) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation, contending that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting incriminatory statements Harris made to an investigating officer without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Given that probation proceedings are civil in nature, and that as a result Miranda warnings are inapplicable, and given the cumulative nature of Harris's statements, we affirm the trial court's decision.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
After Harris pleaded guilty to pointing a firearm as a Class A misdemeanor, the trial court accepted Harris's plea, sentenced Harris to 365 days in jail, and suspended the sentence to probation. A term of the sentencing order provided that " Defendant shall be placed on probation for a period of one year under the standard conditions and any on the written order of probation." Appellant's App . at 20. Condition Number 2 of the probation order required that Harris " comply with all Local, State and Federal laws, and within 48 hours of being arrested or charged for a new criminal offense . . . shall contact [his] Probation Officer with that information." Id. at 18.
On May 16, 2013, the State alleged that Harris violated the conditions of his probation by committing the offense, invasion of privacy as a Class A misdemeanor. At a hearing held on June 21, 2013, Noblesville Police Officer April Lantz (" Officer Lantz" ) testified that her department received a report that Harris had violated a no contact order. Officer Lantz met with the protected person who told the officer that Harris was violating the no contact order by sending her text messages and visiting her place of employment. The woman provided Officer Lantz with a copy of the protective order issued by the Marion Superior Court, and that copy was presented at Harris's probation revocation hearing. The no contact order provided that Harris " is restrained from any contact" with that individual. State's Ex . 1.
After speaking with the woman, Officer Lantz met with Harris at the Hamilton County Community Corrections Facility, where Harris was serving a sentence imposed in another cause of action. The two met " [i]n the visitor's room inside the facility," and Harris was free to leave. Tr . at 7. During the conversation, Harris admitted that he had visited the woman at her place of employment and sent text messages to her. Harris further acknowledged the existence of the protective order. Harris was charged with invasion of privacy as a result of Officer Lantz's investigation.
Officer Lantz testified at Harris's probation revocation hearing, at the conclusion of which the trial court found that Harris had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court issued an order requiring Harris to serve ...