Opinion
23A-CR-2382
06-10-2024
Charles R. Main, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gary M. Selig Gary M. Selig, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Dearborn Circuit Court The Honorable F. Aaron Negangard, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15C01-2105-F5-40
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Gary M. Selig Gary M. Selig, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
KENWORTHY, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Charles R. Main appeals the revocation of his suspended sentence, raising one issue for our review: Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it revoked his 430-day suspended sentence? Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In 2021, Main pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony conspiracy to commit trafficking with an inmate. Main was sentenced to 730 days in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"), with 430 days suspended to probation. While on probation, Main was to obey all conditions of probation set forth by the Dearborn County Probation Department, pay certain costs and fees, not consume alcoholic beverages or illegal controlled substances, and submit to random drug screens.
[¶3] On January 6, 2022, Main was released from the DOC. In January 2023, Main was given a drug screen and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine. On January 20, 2023, the State filed a Request for Probation Violation Hearing based on Main's positive drug screen and failure to make payments.
[¶4] At a hearing on May 1, 2023, Main admitted he violated his probation. The trial court then heard evidence about an appropriate sanction. Main previously was convicted of eighteen misdemeanors, nine felonies, and fifteen probation violations. Main participated in at least one court alcohol and drug program but failed to complete it because of probation violations. Main has been diagnosed with mental health issues including schizophrenia, post-traumatic stress disorder, and manic depression. Main requested the court allow him to receive treatment at the Unity House to address his mental illness and drug addiction. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 20. The court took the sanction under advisement and permitted a furlough to Unity House. Main was released to Unity House on May 10, and ordered to report immediately back to the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center upon either successful completion or unsuccessful termination of the program.
[¶5] On September 1, 2023, the State filed a second Request for Probation Violation Hearing alleging Main committed new crimes, including escape (for leaving Unity House in June and failing to return to detention) and resisting law enforcement.
[¶6] The trial court then held a hearing on the first probation violation it had previously taken under advisement. The court stated it would not consider Main's new charges but would consider his conduct with regard to the furlough. The trial court ordered Main to serve his 430-day suspended sentence at the DOC.
The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion
[¶7] Main argues the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his 430-day suspended sentence. The trial court may revoke probation if a condition has been violated during the probationary period and a petition to revoke is filed during the probationary period. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a) (2015). A trial court's sentencing decision on a probation revocation is reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Guillen v. State, 829 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005), trans. denied. Probation is a matter of grace, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.
[¶8] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must find a person violated the conditions of the probation. Hampton v. State, 71 N.E.3d 1165, 1171 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017), trans. denied. Second, if the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court must decide if a revocation is proper. Id. The court may then impose one 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.
I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h) (2015).
[¶9] The first step of the process is satisfied because Main admitted he violated the conditions of his probation. See Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 134-35 (Ind.Ct.App. 2012) (noting when a probationer admits to the violation, the court can proceed to the second step and determine whether the violation warrants revocation), trans. denied.
[¶10] Next, the court must decide if revocation is proper. In this step, the probationer must be allowed to present mitigating evidence to explain his violations. Id. at 135. Main argues DOC placement is "contrary to [his] mental health needs" and substance use disorder. Appellant's Br. at 12.
[¶11] However, the trial court provided Main opportunity to "take care of [his] problem" despite his lengthy criminal history and danger to society. Tr. Vol. 2 at 30. Main first violated his probation when he tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine and failed to make any payments. The trial court then provided Main with a bonus opportunity to receive treatment for both his mental illness and substance use disorder through a furlough into Unity House. A furlough for mental health and addiction treatment is a "matter of grace" and a "conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right." Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995). However, Main left the facility without completing the program, and failed to report back to the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. Main has demonstrated a habitual pattern of violations despite the repeated grace extended to him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Conclusion
[¶12] The trial court acted within its discretion when it revoked Main's 430-day suspended sentence.
[¶13] Affirmed.
May, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.