Appeals court hears challenge to probation revocation after conflicting 2021 orders and disputed absconding finding

An appellate panel on Oct. 26 heard oral argument in the appeal of Keith Hopkins, who was ordered confined after a 2023 revocation hearing the defense says rested on conflicting orders and unreliable probation testimony.

Chantelle Sotto, Hopkins’ attorney, told the court that an underlying harassment charge tied to a later indictment was dismissed and expunged and that the revocation hearing nonetheless left Hopkins incarcerated. "This matter started briefly ... he was on probation back in 02/2016 ... placed on probation for 4 years 10/11/2021 by Judge Lambe," Sotto said, and later argued that "the court ended up finding an order that said ... he should not be released back to probation" while a second order re-imposed probation the same day.

The panel focused on two central legal questions: whether the trial court made the factual findings required by Dagnon for a probation-violation consequence determination, and whether the appellate court should remand for clearer findings or instead perform a de novo review of consequences. Ronald Coleman, appearing for the state, said the record independently supports a finding that Hopkins absconded for more than a year and that the court may affirm on that basis. "The proof based on Officer Moore's, testimony alone of her experiences overwhelmingly establishes that this defendant absconded," Coleman said.

Why it matters: appellate courts review both legal error and procedural fairness when a defendant's probation is revoked and confinement ordered. If the panel finds the trial court failed to make the statutorily required findings, it may remand for clarification; if it finds the record itself supports the consequence, it may affirm or exercise de novo review.

Record and timeline presented to the court: State counsel summarized the procedural history as originating in February 2015 and resolving in 2018 with convictions for aggravated assault, theft over $1,000 and domestic assault and a four-year probation term. In October 2021 the trial court is reported to have revoked and then reinstated probation; Hopkins later transferred supervision to Tipton County. Officer Ford initially supervised Hopkins; Officer Moore inherited the file in October 2023 and, according to the state's filings and Moore's testimony, attempted contact by phone, letter and home visits for about a year without success, culminating in an amended violation report in October 2024.

Defense arguments and factual disputes: Sotto told the panel the harassment allegation that set the later indictment in motion was dismissed and expunged and that the trial court's oral remarks reflected confusion about two orders signed on the same day in 2021—one revoking and one reinstating probation. Defense counsel challenged the admissibility and foundation of probation testimony, saying Officer Moore "did not bring her file" and on some points "did not have her file" and that much of Moore's testimony appeared to track the state's petition rather than independent records. Sotto argued the trial judge cut off further explanation, recounting the trial judge's comment, "Mister Hopkins just needs to do his time. Appeal me."

State response and standard of review: Coleman acknowledged the record was "a bit messy" and incomplete in places—missing original charging documents and some plea or probation orders—but urged the court that even excluding some challenged material, Moore's firsthand testimony about a year of failed contact was sufficient to support a finding of absconding and the resulting confinement. The state asked the panel to consider de novo review of consequences if the trial court's findings prove inadequate.

Panel concerns and potential remedies: Several judges on the panel expressed concern about process and the sufficiency of findings. One judge said the problem in the record was not solely outcome but whether the procedure was fair and produced a reliable factual record. The bench discussed whether dismissal of the revocation was ever an appropriate remedy or whether remand to the trial court for clearer findings would be the usual remedy. The court took a recess at the close of argument and had not issued a decision in the transcript portion provided.

What was not decided: The panel did not announce a disposition in the hearing transcript. The issues remain whether the appellate court will (1) remand for further factual findings about the violation and consequences, (2) conduct a de novo review of consequences and either affirm confinement, or (3) order another remedy. The transcript shows disagreement between defense and prosecution over foundational evidence and over whether the absconding finding was explicitly made at the revocation hearing.

The case will return to the docket when the appellate panel issues a written opinion or remand order.