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