Medicus v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court’s statement that “the defendant has violated his terms of probation” failed to satisfy Morrissey’s written statement requirement and remanding to the trial court for a probation revocation statement consistent with the due process requirement
• holding that trial court’s simple statement upon revocation that Medicus had violated the terms of probation did not comply Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-671 | December 11, 2019 Page 11 of 24 with his due process right
• explaining that “[d]ue process requires that the reasons for revoking probation be clearly and plainly stated by the sentencing judge not merely to give appellant notice of the revocation, but also to facilitate meaningful appellate review”
• “Due process requires that the reasons for revoking probation be clearly and plainly stated by the sentencing judge not merely to give appellant notice of the revocation, but also to facilitate meaningful appellate review.”
• “Due process requires that the reasons for revoking probation be clearly and plainly stated by the sentencing judge not merely to give appellant notice of the revocation, but also to facilitate meaningful appellate review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).