Opinion
24A-CR-876
09-13-2024
Jacob S. Waldmann, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Eric Grzegorski Kokomo. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Robert M. Yoke.
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Howard Circuit Court The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34C01-2201-F5-000027.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Eric Grzegorski Kokomo.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita, Robert M. Yoke.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Felix, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Jacob Waldmann pled guilty to carrying a handgun without a license and legend drug deception in exchange for a four-year sentence with two years suspended to probation. Waldmann twice violated the terms of probation and was ordered to serve 60 and 180 days of the suspended sentence. After the third probation violation, the remainder of his suspended sentence was executed. Waldmann now appeals and presents one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.
[¶2] We affirm. Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On October 12, 2022, Waldmann pled guilty to carrying a handgun without a license as a Level 5 felony and legend drug deception as a Level 6 felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, two pending cases against Waldmann were dismissed. Waldmann received a fixed sentence of four years of incarceration with two years suspended to probation.
[¶4] On April 12, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Waldmann's probation, alleging that he violated the terms of his probation by being charged with a new criminal offense, using a controlled substance, and failing to report to mandatory drug tests. Waldmann admitted these violations and was sanctioned to serve 60 days of his suspended sentence. In August, the State filed a second petition to revoke Waldmann's probation alleging that Waldmann failed to submit to multiple ordered drug screens and had admitted to using methamphetamine and marijuana. For these violations, Waldmann served 180 days of his suspended sentence.
[¶5] On February 1, 2024, the State filed a third petition to revoke Waldmann's probation, alleging that he failed to report to a scheduled probation check-in, failed to notify his probation officer of a change of address, and failed to submit to three drug screenings. In March, the trial court held a hearing at which Waldmann admitted only that he failed to report to his probation officer. The trial court ordered Waldmann to serve the remaining 490 days of his suspended sentence. Waldmann now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶6] Waldmann claims the trial court erred in revoking his probation. "Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled." Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). "In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion." Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). "An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law." Id. (internal citation omitted) (citing State v. Cozart, 897 N.E.2d 478, 483 (Ind. 2008)).
[¶7] The trial court conducts a two-step process in determining whether to revoke a defendant's probation: "First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation." Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). Waldmann argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.
[¶8] Once the trial court determines a violation has occurred it may:
(1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person's probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.Utley v. State, 167 N.E.3d 777, 783 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)). To determine if the trial court issued an appropriate sanction, we look to the "severity of the defendant's probation violation." Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618. Additionally, we will look at the defendant's criminal history and past probation violations when reviewing whether a sanction is appropriate. See Utley, 167 N.E.3d at 784; Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.
[¶9] Waldmann claims a fully executed sentence is an inappropriate sanction because he only admitted to committing the technical violation of failing to report. However, as we said above, the severity of the violation is but one factor to be considered. Here, Waldmann has a long history of criminal conduct and an inability to comply with the terms of probation. Waldmann's criminal history began at the age of 13 with multiple juvenile adjudications, and, as an adult, he has 4 misdemeanor convictions as well as 7 felony convictions. In the present case, Waldmann had two active warrants against him when he was arrested for the offenses he was placed on probation. Waldmann has previously violated the terms of probation 16 times, including the 2 probation violations in the present cause.
[¶10] In general, the law may frown upon severe sanctions for technical violations, but when a probationer continues to commit violations, even technical ones, after being sanctioned for earlier violations, the law does not turn a blind eye to the bigger picture. Here, the bigger picture is that Waldmann committed two felony offenses while two other active warrants were pending, he violated his probation twice before violating this time, he has a long history of criminal conduct, and a long history of repeatedly violating probation. The trial court's commendable attempts at issuing graduated sanctions were ineffective in getting Waldmann to complete probation successfully. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Waldmann to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence.
[¶11] Affirmed.
Kenworthy, J., and Riley, Sr. J., concur.