The Indiana Supreme Court issued a divided decision in *Lamenski Ewing v. State of Indiana*, ruling that a defendant's probation revocation must be reversed when proper notice requirements are not met. The court held 3-2 that Ewing did not receive adequate notice that prosecutors intended to revoke his probation alongside his work release violation.
Justice Molter wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Rush and Justice Goff, while Justice Slaughter dissented in an opinion joined by Justice Massa. The decision addresses fundamental due process requirements in probation revocation proceedings.
Ewing originally pleaded guilty to criminal confinement as a Level 3 felony and interfering with reporting a crime as a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate five-year term: two years through time already served and work release, followed by three years of probation.
Under his plea agreement, Ewing understood that violating the rules of any "Court-sponsored program" would result in revocation of his placement on that program and execution of his sentence. The agreement specifically referenced work release as the court-sponsored program in question.
The legal issues arose in August 2023 when Ewing failed to return to the work release facility as required. Three days after he was supposed to return, the community corrections case manager filed a petition seeking revocation of his work release placement.
However, the central dispute centered on whether this petition adequately notified Ewing that prosecutors were also seeking to revoke his subsequent probation term, not just his work release status. Ewing argued that the community corrections manager's petition did not provide proper notice that the state intended to revoke both his work release and his probation.
The majority opinion found merit in Ewing's argument about insufficient notice. Justice Molter's opinion emphasized that due process requires defendants to receive clear notice of the charges and potential consequences they face in revocation proceedings. The court determined that the petition's language was inadequate to inform Ewing that his three-year probation term was also at risk.
This notice requirement serves as a fundamental protection in probation revocation proceedings, ensuring defendants can adequately prepare their defense and understand the full scope of potential consequences. The court's decision reinforces that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even when the underlying violation may be clear.
The case originated in Vanderburgh Circuit Court under case number 82C01-2204-F3-1994, with the Honorable Celia Pauli serving as magistrate. After the initial proceedings, the case moved through the Indiana Court of Appeals before reaching the state's highest court on petition to transfer.
Oral arguments in the case took place on Sept. 25, 2025, with the court taking several months to reach its decision, ultimately filing the opinion on Feb. 12, 2026. The extended deliberation period suggests the justices carefully considered the complex procedural and constitutional issues at stake.
The dissenting opinion by Justice Slaughter, joined by Justice Massa, likely argued for a different interpretation of the notice requirements or found the existing petition sufficient to inform Ewing of the potential consequences. However, the specific reasoning of the dissent was not detailed in the available court records.
This decision has broader implications for probation revocation proceedings throughout Indiana. The ruling clarifies that prosecutors and corrections officials must be precise in their petitions and ensure defendants receive complete notice of all potential revocations being sought, not just the immediate program violation.
The decision also highlights the court's commitment to procedural due process protections, even in cases involving apparent violations of court-imposed conditions. While Ewing's failure to return to the work release facility appears undisputed, the court prioritized ensuring proper procedural safeguards over expediting the revocation process.
For practitioners, this ruling emphasizes the importance of careful drafting in revocation petitions. Community corrections officials and prosecutors must ensure their filings clearly articulate all potential consequences and revocations being sought to avoid similar reversals.
The case also demonstrates the Indiana Supreme Court's willingness to scrutinize procedural aspects of criminal justice proceedings, particularly when fundamental due process rights are at issue. This approach reflects broader trends in criminal law toward ensuring defendants receive adequate procedural protections.
Moving forward, this decision will likely prompt corrections departments and prosecutor's offices to review their standard revocation petition templates and procedures to ensure compliance with the notice requirements established in *Ewing*. The ruling serves as a reminder that technical compliance with procedural requirements remains essential even in cases with clear substantive violations.
The reversal means Ewing's probation revocation is set aside, though the specific next steps in his case will depend on how prosecutors choose to proceed following this ruling.