Taiveon Tramayne Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Feb 18 2019, 6:45 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Patrick M. Schrems Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Monroe County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Bloomington, Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Taiveon Tramayne Taylor, February 18, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2022
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc R. Kellams,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
53C02-1801-F6-49
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2022 | February 18, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Taiveon Taylor (“Taylor”) appeals the trial court’s order revoking his
probation. Finding sufficient evidence to support the revocation, we affirm the
trial court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the revocation of
Taylor’s probation.
Facts
[3] In March 2018, Taylor pled guilty to Level 6 felony intimidation. In exchange
for his guilty plea, the State dismissed two additional counts of Level 6 felony
intimidation. Pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement, the trial court
sentenced Taylor to two (2) years and (6) months and suspended the sentence to
probation.
[4] Two months later, in May 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Taylor’s
probation alleging that he had violated the terms of his probation by: (1)
committing the offense of auto theft; (2) operating a motor vehicle without a
license; and (3) failing to provide proof of participation in and/or completion of
a treatment program.
[5] At the revocation hearing, Tiffani Sims (“Sims”) and Bloomington Police
Department Officer Brandon Siniard (“Officer Siniard”) both testified that they
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2022 | February 18, 2019 Page 2 of 4
had seen Taylor driving Sims’ Mercedes on May 26, 2018. Officer Siniard
specifically testified that he was fifteen feet away from Taylor at the time he
made the identification and that it was a clear and sunny day. There was
nothing obstructing his view of Taylor, with whom he had had prior contact.
[6] At the end of the revocation hearing, the trial court concluded that the State
had proved all three violations that were set forth in the revocation petition.
The trial court further ordered Taylor to serve 456 days of his previously
suspended sentence. Taylor now appeals the revocation of his probation.
Decision
[7] Taylor argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his
probation. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a
right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d
184, 188 (Ind. 2007). It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the
conditions of probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated.
Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). When reviewing an appeal
from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence most favorable
to the judgment and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of
the witnesses. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 954-55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005),
trans. denied. A probation violation need be proven only by a preponderance of
the evidence. Pittman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans.
denied. Further, the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to
revoke probation. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2022 | February 18, 2019 Page 3 of 4
[8] Here, Taylor does not dispute that he does not have a license. Rather, he
argues that there was “insufficient evidence to support the allegation that
Taylor was driving a vehicle in violation of his terms of probation.” (Taylor’s
Br. 8). However, our review of the evidence reveals that both Sims and Officer
Siniard testified that they had seen Taylor driving Sims’ Mercedes. Officer
Siniard further testified that he was fifteen feet away from Taylor when he
identified him and that it was a clear and sunny day. There was nothing
obstructing the officer’s view of Taylor, with whom he had had prior contact.
Taylor’s argument that Officer Sinian might be mistaken is an invitation for us
to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Sanders, 825 N.E.2d at 954-
55. We find that there is sufficient evidence to support the revocation of
Taylor’s probation.1
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
1
Because we have found sufficient evidence to support one of the probation violations, we need not address
the sufficiency of the evidence to support the other two violations. See Pittman, 749 N.E.2d at 559.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2022 | February 18, 2019 Page 4 of 4