Opinion
24A-CR-1229
12-04-2024
Travis Lee Kent, Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Amanda O. Blackketter Blackketter Law, LLC Shelbyville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana J.T. Whitehead 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Shelby Circuit Court The Honorable Trent E. Meltzer, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 73C01-1810-F4-18
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Amanda O. Blackketter Blackketter Law, LLC Shelbyville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BROWN, JUDGE
[¶1] Travis Lee Kent appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court upon revocation of his probation. He contends the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve two-and-one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC").
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In October 2018, while he was serving probation in Cause Number 73C01-1312-FA-034 ("Cause No. 34"), the State charged Kent with possession of methamphetamine as a level 4 felony in Cause Number 73C01-1810-F4-018 ("Cause No. 18"). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Kent pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a level 4 felony in Cause No. 18. In a consolidated guilty plea and sentencing order, the Shelby Circuit Court revoked Kent's probation and ordered him to serve 458 days of his previously suspended sentence on home detention in Cause No. 34. In Cause No. 18, the court noted that Kent had a significant criminal history and that he had been arrested while serving probation. The court sentenced Kent to seven years with five years executed as a direct commitment to home detention and two years suspended to probation. The court ordered the sentences in both causes to be served consecutively.
[¶3] On November 15, 2021, while he was serving home detention in Cause No. 18, Kent filed a motion to modify his sentence. The court granted the motion and entered a modified sentence of seven years, with 1,032 days executed and the balance of three and one-half years suspended to probation.
[¶4] On November 15, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke probation in Cause No. 18 alleging that Kent submitted a drug screen that tested positive for alcohol in February 2023, and he thereafter failed to submit to two required drug screens in September and October 2023. The court held a revocation hearing on June 25, 2024. Kent admitted to violating his probation in Cause No. 18 by consuming alcohol and failing to submit to required drug screens on two separate occasions. During the hearing, Kent also admitted that, while on probation, he had committed new offenses in Decatur County resulting in convictions for possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony, dealing in marijuana as a level 6 felony, identity deception as a level 6 felony, possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. Kent further admitted that his probation had been revoked on multiple occasions under multiple other cause numbers.
[¶5] Following the hearing, the court accepted Kent's admission that he violated his probation in Cause No. 18 by consuming alcohol and failing to submit to drug screens on two separate occasions. The court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve two and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.
Discussion
[¶6] Kent does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his probation. Rather, he challenges the sanction imposed and asserts the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve two and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence simply "for consuming alcohol and missing urine screens." Appellant's Brief at 5. He argues that he deserved a lesser sanction because he "took responsibility and admitted he violated his probation" and he had previously "completed more than two and one-half years on home detention without any violations." Id. at 5, 7.
[¶7] We review trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that, "[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed" and that, "[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants." Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.
[¶8] Ind. Code § 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.
[¶9] When reviewing an appeal from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009), trans. denied. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999).
[¶10] The record reveals that Kent admitted to committing three violations of the terms and conditions of his probation in Cause No. 18. Those violations involved a positive screen for alcohol and the failure to submit to two subsequent required drug screens. The nature of these violations is significant in light of Kent's significant and recent criminal history involving substance-abuse related offenses. The trial court's determination under the circumstances that Kent was not an appropriate candidate for continued probation is not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Kent to serve his revoked sentence in the DOC.
[¶11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.
[¶12] Affirmed.
Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.