Opinion
24A-CR-1718
12-13-2024
Jeron McDonald, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Benjamin Loheide. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak.
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-2301-F5-556.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Benjamin Loheide.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Vaidik, Judge.
Case Summary
[¶1] Jeron McDonald appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violation of probation. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In August 2023, McDonald pled guilty to Level 5 felony burglary. At sentencing, the trial court found several aggravators: McDonald had a prior criminal history (which included robbery, drug possession, and fraud), he was on probation for fraud when he committed the burglary (and later admitted to violating his probation in that case), prior treatment was unsuccessful, and he had little remorse. The court found one mitigator: he pled guilty. Finding the aggravators to outweigh the mitigator, the trial court sentenced McDonald to an above-advisory term of five years. The court gave him credit for thirty-eight days and suspended the balance of his sentence, with three years of probation.
[¶3] In January 2024, the State petitioned to revoke McDonald's probation for committing a new offense (domestic battery), failing to pay costs and fees, failing to notify probation of his address change, and failing to pay restitution. The next month, the State amended the petition to add that McDonald had committed yet another new offense (invasion of privacy). In March, McDonald and the State entered into a plea agreement under which McDonald would plead guilty to invasion of privacy and be sentenced to 120 days in jail, the State would dismiss the domestic-battery charge, McDonald would admit to violating his probation, and his probation sanction was "open to the Court after hearing evidence and argument by the parties." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 68. The court set a dispositional hearing for April.
[¶4] McDonald was mistakenly released from jail and failed to appear at the April hearing. The trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. When McDonald was arrested on the warrant, he was in possession of marijuana. A new dispositional hearing was set for June. At that hearing, McDonald testified and asked to be placed in REALM, which is a substance-abuse program that involves around six months of incarceration followed by a period of intensive supervision with continuing care. The court highlighted McDonald's criminal history and that he was on probation in the fraud case when he committed the burglary, which was a "serious offense," and then violated his probation again. Tr. p. 71. The court observed that McDonald had been dishonest in his testimony and with the probation department. The court explained that because it didn't know when to believe McDonald, he was not an appropriate candidate for REALM, which requires "complete honesty from everyone." Id. Believing that McDonald needed "a structured setting in which he can be held accountable," the court ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence of five years (minus credit time) in prison. Id. at 72.
McDonald was charged with and pled guilty to possession of marijuana and was sentenced to time served. See Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 81-82.
[¶5] McDonald now appeals. Discussion
[¶6] McDonald contends the trial court shouldn't have ordered him to serve his entire suspended sentence. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
[¶7] McDonald argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing "the most extreme sanction" on "his first petition to revoke." Appellant's Br. p. 11. But this wasn't McDonald's first probation violation. He admitted to violating his probation in the fraud case by committing Level 5 felony burglary, and the trial court ordered him to serve 400 days in jail. See Cause No. 03C01-2105-F6-2398. And when McDonald was placed back on probation for his burglary conviction, he violated it by committing yet another new offense (and not paying fees/restitution and keeping probation updated). After admitting to violating his probation, he did not appear at the dispositional hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. When he was arrested on that warrant, he was in possession of marijuana and later pled guilty to that. The trial court acknowledged McDonald's request to participate in REALM but found he was not a good candidate because it couldn't "trust" him to be honest, which was required to be successful, and he needed more structure. Tr. p. 71. McDonald has not shown that the trial court abused its broad discretion by imposing all his suspended time.
[¶8] Affirmed.
Altice, C.J., and Crone, Sr. J., concur.