Opinion
24A-CR-1661
11-26-2024
Christopher S. Szabo, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Avery A. Walker The Law Office of Riley and Ahler, P.C. Rensselaer, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak Deputy Attorney General of Indiana 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Jasper Circuit Court The Honorable Robert M. Hall, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 37C01-1705-F1-482
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Avery A. Walker
The Law Office of Riley and Ahler, P.C.
Rensselaer, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Michelle Hawk Kazmierczak
Deputy Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Weissmann and Felix Judges concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Christopher Szabo ("Szabo") appeals the revocation of his probation. Specifically, although he acknowledges that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, Szabo argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the remainder 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 Szabo to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation.
Facts
[¶3] In February 2019, thirty-two-year-old Szabo pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Level 4 felony child solicitation. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Szabo to twelve (12) years suspended on formal sex offender probation. Pursuant to the terms of his probation, Szabo was prohibited from committing any additional criminal offenses. In addition, Szabo was required to meet with his probation officer at least once a month or as directed by his probation officer and to submit to drug testing if required to do so by his probation officer. Szabo was further required to notify the probation department within twenty-four hours of any change in his residence.
[¶4] In July 2022, the State filed a petition to revoke Szabo's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Szabo had failed to attend three scheduled appointments with his probation officer in May and June 2022. The State further alleged that when Szabo had attended a scheduled appointment with his probation officer on June 8, 2022, Szabo had refused to submit to a drug test. In addition, the State alleged that Szabo had failed to appear for a scheduled drug test on June 9, 2022. In August 2022, Szabo admitted to committing the allegations in the revocation petition, and the trial court found that Szabo had violated the terms of his probation. As a result of the violation, the trial court ordered Szabo to obtain a mental health evaluation within fourteen days.
[¶5] Two months later, in October 2022, the State filed a second petition to revoke Szabo's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Szabo had failed to obtain a mental health evaluation within fourteen days of the trial court's August 2022 order. The State further alleged that Szabo had failed to attend scheduled appointments with his probation officer in September and October 2022 and that Szabo had failed to report a change of residence to his probation officer. In August 2023, Szabo admitted to committing the allegations in the second revocation petition, and the trial court found that Szabo had violated the terms of his probation. As a result of the violation, the trial court modified the terms of Szabo's probation to include participation in mental health treatment.
[¶6] Two months later, in October 2023, the State filed a third petition to revoke Szabo's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Szabo had recently been charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony theft. In May 2024, pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, Szabo pleaded guilty to the two Level 6 felony charges and admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by committing the two felony offenses.
[¶7] At a June 2024 sentencing hearing, Szabo's probation officer recommended that Szabo serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction ("the DOC"). Szabo asked the trial court to place him in an inpatient substance abuse treatment program.
[¶8] After hearing the probation officer's recommendation and Szabo's request, the trial court stated as follows:
. . . in regard to the revocation of probation . . ., you've got the prior violations. You've committed another crime, or set of crimes, and so that sentence, I'm going to revoke the probation and we're going to go the next step, as I consider it, of seeing what can happen in terms of programs that are available within the Department of Corrections.(Tr. Vol. 2 at 21).
[¶9] Szabo now appeals.
Decision
[¶10] Szabo argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We disagree.
[¶11] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Once a trial court has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial courts might be less inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decision for a probation violation is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person has violated his probation before termination of the probationary period, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing. IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).
[¶12] Here, Szabo, who was on probation for a Level 4 felony child solicitation conviction, admitted that he had committed multiple probation violations. Specifically, in August 2022, Szabo admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by failing to attend scheduled meetings with his probation officer and refusing to take drug tests. In August 2023, Szabo admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by failing to attend scheduled meetings with his probation officer, failing to report a change of residence to his probation officer, and failing to timely obtain a court-ordered mental health evaluation. Following those admitted violations, the trial court twice showed leniency to Szabo by continuing his probation. However, Szabo squandered these opportunities and committed two additional felony offenses. After Szabo admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation for a third time, the trial court determined that it had reached the point where it was going to revoke Szabo's probation and "go to the next step" of ordering Szabo to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 21). Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered Szabo to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.
[¶13] Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.