Edward Jones, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
Dec 30 2015, 7:07 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
Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Edward Jones, Jr., December 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
15A01-1506-CR-623
v. Appeal from the Dearborn
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A.
Appellee-Plaintiff McLaughlin, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15D02-1212-FC-263
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Edward Jones appeals the judgment of the trial court ordering him to serve four
years of his previously suspended sentence following his second probation
violation. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On August 19, 2013, Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of class C felony
intimidation with a deadly weapon and several class C misdemeanors—hunting
without the consent of the landowner, illegal possession/taking of white tail
deer, illegal possession/taking of river otter, hunting deer with illegal devices,
and a taxidermist violation. The trial court sentenced Jones to consecutive
terms of eight and two years for the intimidation convictions and to 60-day
terms for each misdemeanor conviction, to be served concurrently to each other
and to the intimidation terms. This resulted in a total sentence of ten years, of
which the trial court ordered Jones to serve two years incarcerated and eight
years under supervised probation.
[3] On December 12, 2013, the trial court ordered Jones to serve 180 days of his
previously suspended sentence after he admitted to violating the terms of his
probation. On March 31, 2015, the trial court found that Jones had violated
the terms of his probation a second time after Jones admitted to stealing
hunting equipment and hunting illegally. As a result, on May 20, 2015, the trial
court ordered him to serve an additional four years of his previously suspended
sentence. Jones now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[4] Probation is not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled, but rather a
matter of grace left to the discretion of the trial court. Prewitt v. State, 878
N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The trial court has discretion to determine the
conditions of probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated.
Id. “If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were
scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order
probation to future defendants.” Id. Accordingly, we review a trial court’s
decision to revoke probation only for an abuse of discretion. Id.[5] Here, the trial court found that Jones suffers from Huntington’s disease. Jones
argues that the trial court’s decision to revoke four years of his probation “was
not necessary to bring about his reform” in light of this circumstance.
Appellant’s Br. p. 10. While taking Jones’s disease into account, the trial court
nevertheless determined that other circumstances counseled in favor of revoking
four years of his probation.
[6] The trial court first noted that Jones has shown a persistent disregard for the
terms of his probation, as this is his second violation. Furthermore, the trial
court found these new violations to be particularly serious, in that they were
new criminal offenses, similar in nature to Jones’s initial criminal offenses, that
represent a continuation of his original criminal conduct. The trial court also
took into account Jones’s long list of prior convictions, many of which relate to
hunting. Finally, the trial acknowledged Jones’s diagnosis, but noted that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 3 of 4
disease was not so debilitating as to inhibit him from committing the new
crimes.
[7] At the hearing, Jones introduced a medical research paper that suggests that
sufferers of diseases such as Huntington’s are more likely to commit crimes
such as theft. Appellant’s App. p. 278. We acknowledge that a trial court
would be acting well within its discretion to take such evidence into
consideration in a probation revocation proceeding. However, while we
assume the research paper accurately characterizes those who suffer from such
diseases generally, we note that there is no evidence in the record that indicates
to what extent Jones’s disease had progressed when he committed the
violations at issue here, or that the violations came as a result of the disease.
See id. at 226-38. Finally, we note that the trial court opted not to impose the
maximum sanction in this case, affording Jones some lenience by leaving a
large portion of his initial sentence suspended to probation. We cannot say that
the trial court abused its discretion under these circumstances.
[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 4 of 4