Michael Duckett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 23 2015, 9:53 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller
Hansen Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Noblesville, Indiana
Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Duckett, December 23, 2015
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A05-1507-CR-912
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Petitioner Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1202-FA-1562
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 1 of 3
[1] Michael Duckett appeals the judgment of the trial court modifying the terms of
his sentence and ordering a portion of his previously suspended sentence to be
executed as the result of a probation violation. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] Duckett pleaded guilty to class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug and the trial
court sentenced him to twelve years, with six years executed and six years
suspended. Duckett served a portion of this sentence and began a probationary
period on May 17, 2012.
[3] Since that time, Duckett has violated the terms of his probation three times.
The trial court modified Duckett’s sentence following each of these violations.
On April 2, 2015, following the most recent violation, the trial court further
modified Duckett’s sentence, resulting in an executed portion of 1611 days
incarceration from the date of the order. Three years of Duckett’s sentence
remains suspended. Duckett now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] We afford great deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision in a probation
revocation proceeding and we will review it only for an abuse of discretion.
Sharp v. State, 817 N.E.2d 644, 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). An abuse of discretion
occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before it. Id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 2 of 3
[5] Here, Duckett does not dispute that he has violated his probation on multiple
occasions. However, he “submits that a maximum sentence in this case was
unwarranted and is an abuse of discretion.” Appellant’s App. p. 8. This
appears to constitute the entirety of his argument, as he offers no further
explanation. Id.[6] We find this argument unpersuasive to say the least. Despite being given
numerous opportunities to reform his behavior, Duckett continued to violate
the terms of his probation. Furthermore, we do not know where Duckett gets
the idea that the trial court imposed the “maximum sentence” in this case, as
three years of his total sentence remain suspended. Id. Duckett has simply
asked us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court without making
any attempt to convince us that the trial court erred. It is clear that such a
request must fail and, accordingly, we find that the trial court was well within
its discretion to modify Duckett’s sentence as it did.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 3 of 3