Opinion
24A-CR-1194
11-21-2024
Jason Andrew Beasley, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Vanderburgh Superior Court The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D03-2204-F4-1851.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Fishers, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Weissmann, Judge.
[¶1] Months after failing to report to probation as ordered, Jason Beasley committed two new criminal offenses. The trial court subsequently revoked Beasley's probation and ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence. On appeal, Beasley challenges this sanction as too severe. We affirm.
Facts
[¶2] Beasley pleaded guilty to two drug-related felonies and received an eight-year sentence comprised of time served and 547 days suspended to Drug Abuse Probation Services (DAPS). Though he was ordered to report to DAPS immediately upon his release from custody, which occurred just after his sentencing, Beasley failed to do so. Shortly thereafter, the State filed a petition to revoke Beasley's probation.
[¶3] Four months later, Beasley violated his probation again by committing new offenses. While riding a bicycle at night without proper lights, Beasley fled from police who tried to pull him over. He failed to stop at multiple stop signs during his flight. When he was finally stopped, Beasley had marijuana in his possession and acknowledged that he had an active warrant for his arrest based on his failure to report to DAPS. The State charged Beasley with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and also filed a second petition to revoke his probation.
[¶4] Following a joint hearing on all the alleged probation violations, the trial court found that Beasley violated the terms of his probation by both failing to report to DAPS and by committing the new offenses. The court revoked Beasley's 547-day suspended sentence and ordered the time executed in the Indiana Department of Correction.
Discussion and Decision
[¶5] Beasley appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. "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 a trial court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs where a "decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Id.
[¶6] Beasley does not dispute that he violated the terms of his probation but argues that the trial court's sanction-full execution of his previously suspended sentence-was too harsh. But Beasley fails to convince us that the court committed an abuse of discretion. The trial court was authorized by statute to impose Beasley's sanction. See Indiana Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing execution of all or part of previously suspended sentence as possible sanction for violating probation). And though the appropriateness of a sanction depends upon the "severity of the defendant's probation violation," Beasley's numerous violations are serious. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013).
[¶7] Immediately upon his release from custody, Beasley failed to report to probation as required. He remained non-compliant for months, leading to an arrest warrant of which he was admittedly aware. Then, Beasley fled from police and committed a drug offense, the same type of crime underlying his probation. These violations justify the revocation of Beasley's probation. See Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind.Ct.App. 2018) (affirming probation revocation where defendant failed to keep contact with probation department and committed new offenses).
[¶8] Because of the severity of Beasley's violations, we are unpersuaded by his comparison to cases in which this Court has reversed probation revocations for minor violations. Cf. Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1231 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (finding violation minor where defendant moved just beyond boundary of home detention and had documented mental limitations); Sullivan v. State, 56 N.E.3d 1157, 1162 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (reversing revocation where defendant failed to report to home detention because he was hospitalized but contacted counsel about inability to report). Beasley made no effort to contact DAPS, and the commission of new crimes is far from minor non-compliance.
[¶9] Finally, Beasley argues that he needs substance abuse treatment, not incarceration. But he was already given that opportunity through the DAPS probation program, which offers counseling and substance abuse monitoring. He immediately rejected this opportunity by failing to report to the program. Moreover, Beasley has previously been placed on probation seventeen times but completed it successfully only once. This record suggests he is not a good candidate for continued probation.
[¶10] Beasley has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering full execution of his previously suspended sentence. We therefore affirm.
Pyle, J., and Felix, J., concur.