Opinion
24A-CR-1189
12-11-2024
Zachary A. Presley, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gabriel M. Berry Delaware County Public Defender's Office Muncie, Indiana. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana Savannah L. Mundy 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Delaware Circuit Court The Honorable Kimberly S. Dowling, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 18C02-1906-F3-20.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gabriel M. Berry Delaware County Public Defender's Office Muncie, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Kelly A. Loy Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana Savannah L. Mundy Certified Legal Intern.
Weissmann and Felix, Judges concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Zachary A. Presley ("Presley") appeals the sanction imposed following the revocation of his probation. Presley argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve part of his 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 when it ordered Presley to serve part of his previously suspended sentence.
Facts
[¶3] In May 2019, the State charged Presley with Level 3 felony armed robbery. In March 2021, the trial court found that Presley was "incompetent to stand trial" and did "not have comprehension sufficient to understand the nature of the criminal action against him[.]" (Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 79). The trial court committed Presley to the Division of Mental Health, and in June 2021, the Division of Mental Health committed Presley to the Logansport State Hospital. After eighty-three days, a psychiatrist at the Logansport State Hospital deemed Presley competent to stand trial, and Presley returned to the Delaware County Jail.
[¶4] In December 2021, Presley entered into a plea agreement with the State. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Presley pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony intimidation, a lesser included offense of Level 3 felony armed robbery. At his February 2022 sentencing hearing, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Presley to six (6) years, with three (3) years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction ("the DOC") and three (3) years suspended to supervised probation. The trial court ordered that Presley comply with all standard terms and conditions of probation. Further, the trial court noted in its sentencing order that Presley had served a total of seven hundred and sixty-three (763) days of jail time and three hundred and thirty-two (332) days of good time credit. The trial court determined that Presley had satisfied the executed portion of his sentence and applied the remaining good time credit towards his supervised probation sentence. The trial court ordered that Presley serve two (2) years and one hundred and thirty-three (133) days on supervised probation.
[¶5] In August 2022, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Presley's probation. In February 2023, the probation department amended its petition alleging that Presley: (1) failed to report to his probation officer; (2) failed to reside at the Grant County Rescue Mission; (3) failed to stay in contact with IRACS; and (4) failed to notify his probation officer of a change of his address or phone number. The probation department argued that all of these allegations violated the standard terms and conditions of supervised probation.
IRACS is an acronym for the Integrated Re-entry and Correctional Support program.
[¶6] In April 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the probation department's petition to revoke Presley's probation. At the hearing, Presley admitted to violating the terms of his probation. Specifically, Presley admitted that he had: (1) failed to report to his probation officer on November 14, 2022; (2) failed to reside at the Grant County Rescue Mission; (3) failed to stay in contact with IRACS; and (4) failed to notify his probation officer of a change of his address or phone number. The trial court found that Presley had violated the terms of his probation. The trial court further found that Presley still had approximately one hundred and ninety (190) days remaining on his sentence. Ultimately, the trial court revoked Presley's probation and ordered him to serve ninety (90) days of his previously suspended sentence at the DOC.
[¶7] Presley now appeals. Decision
[¶8] Presley argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve part of his previously suspended sentence. "[A] trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard." Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (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] INDIANA CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) provides:
(h) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition [of probation] 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:
* * * * *
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
"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. Further, it is well settled that a single "violation of a condition of probation is enough to support a probation revocation." Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015).
[¶10] The crux of Presley's argument is that we revise his sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) in light of the nature of the offense and his character. However, as set forth above, we review the trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations only for an abuse of discretion, and here, we find none.
[¶11] Our review of the record reveals that Presley, at his probation revocation hearing, admitted to violating the standard terms and conditions of his supervised probation. Specifically, Presley admitted that he had: (1) failed to report to his probation officer on November 14, 2022; (2) failed to reside at the Grant County Rescue Mission; (3) failed to stay in contact with IRACS; and (4) failed to notify his probation officer of a change of his address or phone number. The trial court, at the conclusion of the revocation hearing, ordered Presley to serve part of his previously suspended sentence at the DOC.
Considering the record before us, the sanction imposed was well within the trial court's discretion. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.
[¶12] Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.