Opinion
24A-CR-146
06-28-2024
Zachary L. Miller, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Attorney for Appellant Thomas C. AllenThomas C. Allen Attorney at Law, P.C. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Jennifer Anwarzai 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Allen Superior Court The Honorable Samuel R. Keirns, MagistrateTrial Court Cause No. 02D05-2003-F3-000025
Attorney for Appellant Thomas C. AllenThomas C. Allen Attorney at Law, P.C. Fort Wayne, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General
Jennifer Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FELIX, JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Following Zachary Miller's 2020 plea of guilty to robbery and domestic battery, the trial court sentenced him to eight years of incarceration and suspended four years to probation. While on probation, Miller threatened to burn down the halfway house he was living in and threatened to hit staff at the halfway house. The halfway house terminated Miller from its program, and the probation department filed a petition to revoke Miller's probation. The trial court found that Miller violated his probation, and it executed the suspended portion of his sentence. Miller now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Miller on the probation violation.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] In August 2020, Miller pled guilty to one count of robbery as a Level 3 felony and one count of domestic battery as a Level 6 felony. The trial court accepted Miller's guilty plea and sentenced him to eight years, with four years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC") and the other four years suspended to probation.
[¶4] In late November 2022, Miller began probation. One of the terms of Miller's probation was that he was not to use drugs. On August 11 and 17, 2023, while living with his grandparents, Miller tested positive for fentanyl. As a result, on August 30, 2023, the Allen County Probation Department modified the terms of Miller's probation to require him to successfully complete halfway house placement. The Probation Department referred Miller to the Choices Treatment Centre (the "Centre"), and Miller moved into the Centre in late September 2023.
[¶5] In late October 2023, Miller tested positive for THC, and the Centre found he was mishandling suboxone and "becoming hostile." Tr. Vol. II at 8. Shortly thereafter, Miller's probation officer warned him that if he continued to be hostile or not follow the Centre's rules, the probation officer would file a petition to revoke his probation along with a warrant application. On November 8, 2023, the Centre sent Miller's probation officer a corrective action plan for Miller based on Miller's violations of the Centre's rules regarding cleanliness, phone use, and bunks. The corrective action plan noted that if Miller did not begin complying with the Centre's rules, the Centre may terminate him from its program.
[¶6] On November 9, 2023, the Centre sent Miller's probation office a notice of termination report, stating it had terminated Miller's participation in its program due to Miller threatening violence against the Centre's staff and property the day prior. In particular, late in the evening on November 8, 2023, Miller was sitting in the Centre's lobby when a security officer heard Miller say he was going to burn down the Centre, punch the Centre's owner, and punch the Centre's assistant director. Based on the Centre's notice of termination, on November 9, 2023, the Allen County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke Miller's probation.
[¶7] On December 18, 2023, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the revocation petition. Miller testified that he had been diagnosed with ADHD and bipolar disorder, and he was taking prescription medication while at the Centre. According to Miller, on the evening of November 8, 2023, he was taking his medication in the Centre's lobby when he began talking with one of his housemates. Miller admitted that he "probably said some things" but claimed that he "never once was going to act on it or anything because [he] was just trying to vent." Tr. Vol. II at 29. Miller then admitted that he had made the alleged threats.
[¶8] The trial court found that Miller violated the terms of his probation, revoked his community corrections placement, and ordered him to serve the previously suspended four years of his sentence in the DOC. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Fully Executing Miller's Suspended Sentence
[¶9] Miller argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the remaining four years of his sentence at the DOC after he violated the terms of his probation. "Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled." Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). We review a trial court's sentencing decision on a probation violation for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App 2005)). "An abuse of discretion occurs 'where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.'" Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). "We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses." Id. (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999)).
[¶10] Miller contends that the trial court abused its discretion by not giving more weight to (1) his mental health issues and alleged inability to take his medication on time, which he claims led to the incident at the Centre, and (2) his alleged lack of aggression during the incident at the Centre. Miller's argument is merely a request for this court to review the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551). For example, Miller argues that his statements about hitting staff and burning down the Centre were "more akin to venting than to threatening." Appellant's Br. at 11. The trial court was free to discount Miller's characterization of his words and behavior, especially in light of his admission to making the threats, history of being hostile with the Centre's staff, and repeated noncompliance with the Centre's rules.
[¶11] Based on the foregoing, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced Miller to the remaining four years of his sentence for his probation violation. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision.
[¶12] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.