Opinion
24A-CR-1041
08-16-2024
Angela Faith Burton, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT R. Patrick Magrath Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Madison, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Sierra Murray Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Elvis Rivera Salinas Certified Legal Intern
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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Dearborn Superior Court The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D01-2204-F6-116
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
R. Patrick Magrath
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
Madison, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Sierra Murray
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Elvis Rivera Salinas
Certified Legal Intern
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Angela Faith Burton ("Burton") appeals the revocation of her probation, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
[¶2] We affirm. Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Burton to serve part of her previously suspended sentence.
Facts
[¶3] In April 2022, the State charged Burton with Level 6 felony possession of a syringe and Class A misdemeanor operating while suspended. In May 2022, Burton entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of a syringe in exchange for the State's dismissal of the remaining charge. The plea agreement also provided that Burton would be sentenced to 910 days with 844 days suspended to probation. Additionally, Burton was required to report to inpatient treatment and to comply with all aftercare recommendations. The trial court accepted Burton's plea and sentenced her in accordance with the plea agreement.
[¶4] A few months later, in September 2022, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Burton had violated her probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. In July 2023, Burton admitted to violating probation as alleged. The trial court determined that Burton had violated her probation and ordered Burton to serve 383 days of her previously suspended sentence, with 365 days of that time to be served on home detention.
[¶5] In March 2024, the State filed a second notice of probation violation, alleging that Burton had violated her probation by testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. During an April 2024 probation revocation hearing, Burton admitted to violating probation as alleged. Burton acknowledged that she has suffered from substance abuse issues since 2011. Before entering a disposition on Burton's probation violation, the trial court discussed Burton's prior criminal history and corresponding probation violations in those prior criminal cases. Specifically, the trial court outlined that Burton had: (1) a 2010 conviction for driving while suspended with a probation violation; (2) a 2014 theft conviction with a probation violation; (3) a 2014 possession of a controlled substance conviction with three probation violations; (4) a 2017 possession of a drug screen interference device conviction with two probation violations; and (5) a 2021 driving while suspended conviction with a probation violation. Additionally, the trial court noted that this was Burton's second probation violation in this current case. The trial court determined that Burton had violated her probation as alleged, ordered Burton to serve 365 days of her previously suspended sentence, and extended her probation by 365 days. The trial court also ordered Burton to complete inpatient treatment upon her release.
[¶6] Burton now appeals.
Decision
[¶7] Burton argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. We disagree.
[¶8] "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). The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Id.; see also IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(a). Indeed, violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007). Upon determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may "[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing." IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). "Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed." Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. "If this discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants." Id. As a result, we review a trial court's sentencing decision from a probation revocation for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.
[¶9] The record reveals that the trial court had a sufficient basis for its decision to order Burton to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. Here, Burton initially pleaded guilty to possession of a syringe, and she agreed to a sentence of 910 days with 844 days suspended to probation and to attending an inpatient treatment program. Within three months of being placed on probation, Burton violated her probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. The trial court showed Burton leniency by ordering her to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. Specifically, the trial court ordered Burton to serve 365 days on home detention. Burton, however, squandered this opportunity and again tested positive for methamphetamine and also for amphetamine. Burton admitted that she had violated probation by testing positive for these drugs. Additionally, as the trial court noted, Burton has a criminal history that includes multiple probation violations.
[¶10] Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Burton to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Burton's probation and the order revoking part of Burton's previously suspended sentence.
[¶11] Affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.