In a significant ruling, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the decision to revoke Coltin Drew Herzog's probation. The court found that Herzog's due process rights were not violated during the proceedings that led to the revocation. This decision impacts Herzog, who will now serve the remainder of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Herzog, originally charged with serious felonies including attempted murder, had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of burglary in 2022. He was sentenced to six years, with four years executed and two years suspended to probation. The conditions of his probation required him to remain law-abiding during the probation period. However, in May 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging that he had been charged with murder in a new case.
The case reached the Indiana Court of Appeals after Herzog's probation was revoked following a hearing in November 2025. At that hearing, the court took judicial notice of Herzog's conviction for voluntary manslaughter, which had been determined in a separate trial just prior to the probation hearing. Herzog contested the revocation, claiming he had not received proper notice of the violation and that the court had not provided a sufficient written statement regarding the reasons for the revocation.
The Indiana Court of Appeals, led by Judge Foley, ruled against Herzog on both counts. The court stated, "Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled." It affirmed that Herzog had received adequate notice of the allegations against him, as the petition filed by the State clearly indicated he was charged with a new crime. The court noted that Herzog had not raised the issue of inadequate notice during the initial proceedings, which led to a waiver of that claim.
Furthermore, the court found that the trial court's decision to take judicial notice of Herzog's conviction was appropriate. The judges emphasized that the standards for revoking probation are less stringent than those for a criminal trial, requiring only a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Regarding the written statement, the court concluded that the trial court's oral statements during the hearing were sufficient to meet the due process requirements. The judges noted that Herzog was informed of the reasons for the revocation and that the trial court's actions were consistent with legal standards.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces the discretion of trial courts in probation matters and clarifies the procedural requirements for revoking probation. It underscores the importance of defendants understanding the conditions of their probation and the consequences of any violations.
Moving forward, Herzog's case serves as a reminder of the legal processes surrounding probation violations. While he has the option to appeal the Court of Appeals' decision, the likelihood of success may be limited given the court's thorough examination of the due process claims. Details regarding any potential related cases or further appeals were not available in the court filing.