Opinion
Court of Appeals Case No. 69A05-1701-CR-214
05-30-2017
Johnathon T. Beach, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Leanna Weissmann Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Chandra K. Hein Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Leanna Weissmann
Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana Chandra K. Hein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana Appeal from the Ripley Superior Court The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sharp, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69D01-1406-FD-78 Najam, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] Johnathon T. Beach appeals the trial court's revocation of 450 days of his suspended sentence following a probation revocation hearing. He raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking part of his suspended sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 25, 2015, Beach was convicted of battery by bodily waste, as a Class D felony, and resisting law enforcement, as a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Beach to three years with two and a half years suspended to probation. On August 15, 2016, the State filed its petition alleging that Beach had violated the terms of his probation by failing to submit to a urine screen and failing to provide the probation department with proof of his attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous ("AA") or Narcotics Anonymous ("NA") meetings. [3] At the January 3, 2017, hearing on the State's petition, Beach admitted that he violated his probation by failing to submit to a urine screen and failing to provide proof of participation in AA or NA. However, Beach testified that he had, in fact, attended AA/NA meetings but simply failed to provide proof to his probation officer. He also testified that when probation officers arrived at his house on August 9, 2016, to obtain a urine sample, he was unable to provide one because he had a medical condition that required him to catheterize himself. And he testified that he did not report for a urine screen the next day, as directed by the probation officers, because he "did not get off work on time." Tr. at 41. Beach admitted that, at that point, he cut off all contact with the probation department. Beach also admitted at the hearing that, at the time he violated probation in this cause, he was also on probation in Jefferson County for possession of a narcotic drug. And Beach admitted that he was out on bond on new charges in Dearborn County. [4] At the conclusion of the probation violation hearing, the trial court revoked 450 days of Beach's suspended sentence and terminated probation. This appeal ensued.
The record does not disclose the nature of the pending charges in Dearborn County. --------
Discussion and Decision
[5] Beach challenges the trial court's revocation of half of his suspended sentence due to his probation violations. "Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled." Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). "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. (citations omitted). In determining "whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility." Mogg v. State, 918 N.E.2d 750, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). [6] A probation revocation proceeding is a two-step process. Id. First, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence showed that a probation violation occurred. Id.; see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2016).
When a probationer admits to violations of the terms of his probation, the procedural safeguards of [I.C. § 35-38-2-3] are unnecessary. Instead, the court can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. However, even a probationer who admits the allegations against him must still be given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation.Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008) (citations omitted). [7] In the second step of the process, the trial court must determine whether the probation violation warrants revocation of probation or some lesser sanction. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) provides:
If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:
(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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.Our supreme court has held that this statute "permits judges to sentence offenders using any one of or any combination of the enumerated powers." Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 187. A single violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to permit the trial court to revoke probation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [8] Here, Beach admitted to the probation violations. Therefore, the only issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking 450 days of his suspended sentence due to those probation violations. [9] We hold that it did not. Although Beach presented testimony in which he attempted to explain his admitted failures to provide a drug screen or provide proof of his attendance at AA/NA meetings as ordered, the trial court was not required to give credit or weight to that testimony. This is especially true when Beach's own, self-serving testimony was not supported by any other evidence. Beach did not, for example, provide any documentation, such as medical records, to show that he was required to catheterize himself. Nor did he provide any documentation or other witness testimony to prove that he did, in fact, attend an AA/NA meeting. The trial court was well within its discretion when it did not credit Beach's self-serving testimony, especially without any other proof in support of that testimony. [10] Beach also contends that the trial court should have been more lenient since he admitted to the probation violations and presented evidence that he needs to be able to work to support his young family. However, this is merely a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. Mogg, 918 N.E.2d at 755. We affirm the trial court's judgment. [11] Affirmed. Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.