TAYLOR v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] While on probation for attempted armed robbery, Leonard Taylor Jr. violated the conditions of his probation by both consuming alcohol and illegally possessing a firearm. The trial court revoked Taylor's probation on those grounds, and Taylor appeals. He specifically challenges the reliability of the probable cause affidavit used to prove his probation violations. We find the affidavit was sufficiently reliable and affirm.

Facts

[2] In April 2015, Taylor was convicted of Level 3 felony attempted armed robbery. He was sentenced to 14 years in prison, with 4 of those years suspended to probation. After serving the executed portion of his sentence, Taylor began probation in February 2024. Among other conditions of his probation, Taylor was prohibited from violating the law, consuming or possessing alcohol, and using or possessing a firearm.

[3] Nine months later, Taylor was charged with three new crimes. According to the probable cause affidavit, Taylor was drinking with friends outside a house when he got into an altercation with the occupants of a nearby vehicle. Taylor and an accomplice yelled at the occupants and both fired their handguns at the vehicle. One of the occupants was hit with a bullet and drove himself to the police station to report the incident. Detective Sergeant Melissa Sopher interviewed the victim at the hospital, then traveled to the scene where she observed a bottle of alcohol and bullet holes in the victim's car. She interviewed multiple witnesses, including a friend of Taylor's who stated that he was drinking with Taylor that night and that Taylor shot at the vehicle roughly eight times as it drove away. When Sergeant Sopher later showed the victim photo line-ups, the victim identified Taylor and the accomplice as the two shooters.

[4] Sergeant Sopher then interviewed Taylor, who denied being present for the shooting and denied recently seeing the friend that implicated him. But when Sergeant Sopher presented him with traffic camera footage of his vehicle and cell phone records contradicting his claims, Taylor admitted that he communicated with that friend daily. He continued to deny his presence at the scene of the shooting, however, and claimed his car had been towed to a repair shop. Sergeant Sopher then called the towing service that Taylor named, along with several other local services, but none had any records of Taylor's car being towed. Sergeant Sopher recounted the details of her interview with Taylor in a search warrant that she authored, under oath, to request further information from Taylor's cell phone.

[5] Based on Sergeant Sopher's investigation, the State charged Taylor with Level 3 felony aggravated battery, Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 5 felony criminal recklessness. The State also petitioned to revoke Taylor's probation due to these new criminal charges.

[6] At an evidentiary hearing on the revocation petition, the State introduced records of Taylor's new criminal charges as Exhibit 1. This exhibit contained certified copies of the chronological case summary, the charging information, and the probable cause affidavit and search warrant authored by Sergeant Sopher under oath. Taylor objected to the admission of Exhibit 1, arguing that the probable cause affidavit contained hearsay. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted Exhibit 1. Neither the State nor Taylor presented any further evidence.

[7] The trial court ultimately found, by the preponderance of the evidence, that Taylor had violated the conditions of his probation by: (1) possessing and consuming an alcoholic beverage; (2) possessing a firearm; and (3) committing the new crime of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The court therefore revoked Taylor's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in prison. Taylor appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). Therefore, we review probation revocation decisions for an abuse of that discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. In conducting our review, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing evidence or judging witness credibility. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008).

[9] On appeal, Taylor argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because the State failed to sufficiently prove the alleged violations. Specifically, he claims the probable cause affidavit offered as evidence of his new offenses was not sufficiently reliable and therefore should not have been admitted. The record, however, does not support Taylor's contentions.

[10] Because probation revocation proceedings are civil proceedings, the State must prove an alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999); see Heaton, 984 N.E.2d. at 617. The mere arrest or filing of charges against a probationer is not itself grounds for revocation. Jackson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 1040, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Rather, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the probationer committed the crime. Id. “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citation omitted).

[11] To determine whether the State has met its burden, the trial court may consider “any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.” Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551 (noting that the strict rules of evidence do not apply to probation revocation proceedings). A signed and sworn probable cause affidavit “bears substantial indicia of reliability” and, thus, is admissible in a revocation proceeding. Votra v. State, 121 N.E.3d 1108, 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[12] In Votra, this Court found that the probable cause affidavit was sufficiently reliable because it was prepared and signed under oath by a law enforcement officer who personally participated in the investigation and it contained detailed factual information about the alleged offense that was corroborated by other information in the record. By contrast, an affidavit that is not somehow corroborated or verified lacks sufficient reliability. See Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (finding affidavit not sufficiently reliable because it was uncorroborated, the trial court did not explain its reliability finding, and charges were dropped before the revocation hearing); see also Baxter v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1037, 1043 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (finding the claimed affidavit was actually an unverified and unsigned police incident report which lacked sufficient indicia of reliability).

[13] Here, the probable cause affidavit is similar to the reliable affidavit in Votra, and unlike the uncorroborated documents in Figures and Baxter. The affidavit here was signed by Sergeant Sopher, the investigating officer, who swore under oath that the facts contained therein were true. The affidavit was factually detailed: its six pages contained an extensive explanation of the incident, Sergeant Sopher's interviews with multiple witnesses, her subsequent investigation revealing Taylor's involvement, and the victim's identification of Taylor as a shooter. Additionally, the information in the affidavit was corroborated by the information in the sworn search warrant, which recounted Sergeant Sopher's further investigation and her interview with Taylor.

[14] Though the affidavit was not signed by a judge or prosecutor, reliability is not based purely on such endorsements. Taylor makes no argument as to how the signatures of people not involved in the investigation would increase the reliability of the factual assertions already given under oath. Moreover, contrary to Taylor's assertion, the testimony of a live witness is not required to supplement the affidavit. See Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1115-16 (upholding finding of probation violation where State presented only two probable cause affidavits, without live witnesses, and facts from affidavits were corroborated by other information in record).

[15] Taylor's comparison to Figures is unpersuasive. In Figures, this Court found a probable cause affidavit was improperly admitted because it lacked a sufficient foundation of reliability. 920 N.E.2d at 272. Without that affidavit, the State presented only an indictment showing new charges, which was insufficient to prove the alleged violation. Id. But the affidavit in Figures is unlike the detailed, signed, and corroborated affidavit here. And in Figures, the charges underlying the alleged probation violation were dismissed before the revocation hearing, whereas here the charges remained pending. Accordingly, Figures does not compel reversal here.

[16] Finally, Taylor claims the trial court offered no explanation for its determination that the probable cause affidavit was reliable. But the court's order noted both the sworn nature of the affidavit and the certification of the court records as contributing to the court's determination. The order states that the affidavit “contains statements made under oath” by Sergeant Sopher and, “[b]ased on the facts averred under oath,” the court found Taylor violated probation. App. Vol. II, p. 20. The court also noted that Exhibit 1 is a “certified copy” of records pertaining to Taylor's new alleged offenses. Id. The certified nature of the records further supports their reliability. See Figures, 920 N.E.2d at 271 (citing Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)).

[17] The record does not support Taylor's claim that the trial court failed to provide an explanation of its finding that the signed, sworn, and factually detailed probable cause affidavit was reliable. Based on the information contained therein, alongside the other certified court records, the trial court found that Taylor had violated his probation by possessing and consuming an alcoholic beverage, possessing a firearm, and committing the new crime of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Taylor has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in making that determination. We therefore affirm.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.