Ann-Marie Coffin v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 30 2018, 10:09 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Marietto V. Massillamany Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Massillamany Jeter & Carson LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Fishers, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ann-Marie Coffin, November 30, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-703
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1404-FC-2930
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Statement of the Case
[1] Ann-Marie Coffin (“Coffin”) appeals the trial court’s order revoking her
probation and ordering her to serve one year of her previously suspended two-
year sentence. Finding sufficient evidence to support the revocation and no
abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issues
1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the
revocation of Coffin’s probation.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering
Coffin to serve one year of her previously suspended two-
year sentence.
Facts
[3] In December 2014, Coffin pled guilty to Class D felony theft. In exchange for
her guilty plea, the State dismissed a Class C felony burglary charge. The trial
court sentenced Coffin to two (2) years and sixteen (16) days. The trial court
further awarded Coffin credit for sixteen days already served and suspended the
two-year sentence to probation. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of her
probation, Coffin agreed, among other things, to: (1) report to the probation
department as directed; (2) abstain from the possession and consumption of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 2 of 6
illegal drugs; (3) pay probation user fees; and (4) complete thirty hours of
community service per year of probation.1
[4] In August 2015, the State filed a first amended petition to revoke Coffin’s
probation. The petition alleged that Coffin had testified positive for opiates in
April 2015. Following a hearing, the trial court ordered Coffin to serve twenty
days of her previously suspended sentence in the county jail. In August 2015,
the State filed a second petition to revoke Coffin’s probation, which the State
later dismissed.
[5] In February 2017, the State filed a third petition to revoke Coffin’s probation.
The petition alleged that Coffin had failed to pay probation fees and to perform
court-ordered community service. In September 2017, the State filed a fourth
petition to revoke Coffin’s probation. This petition alleged that Coffin had
failed to appear for three scheduled probation appointments. In October 2017,
the State filed a fifth petition to revoke Coffin’s probation. This petition alleged
that Coffin had reported fifty minutes late to a scheduled probation department
meeting.
[6] In January 2018, following a hearing on the third, fourth, and fifth petitions to
revoke Coffin’s probation, the trial court ordered Coffin to serve her two-year
suspended sentence on electronic home monitoring. Coffin was scheduled to
1
After Coffin arrived thirty minutes late for a probation revocation hearing without a satisfactory excuse, the
trial court added the following condition to Coffin’s probation: “[Coffin] must arrive timely to all future
court hearings and probation meetings.” (App. 78).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 3 of 6
attend a Community Corrections intake appointment on January 11, 2018 to
set up her electronic home monitoring. When Coffin failed to attend this
appointment, the State filed a sixth petition to revoke her probation.
[7] At a hearing on this sixth petition to revoke, Coffin admitted that she had
known the date of the appointment and had failed to attend it. She explained
that she had had medical issues but offered no evidence that she was in the
hospital on the day of the appointment. Following the hearing, the trial court
revoked Coffin’s probation and ordered her to serve one year of her two-year
suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. The trial court explained
its reason as follows:
[W]hat I’ve learned from the last four years of working with you
is that you don’t do anything that anybody wants you to do.
You just do not have the capabilities to take on the responsibility
of doing what anybody asks you to do. And because I am
finding you incapable of taking on the responsibility of anything
that I’ve asked you to do, I’m going to [] ask you to do the only
thing that I know you can do, and that is sit in jail.
(Tr. 24). Coffin now appeals.
Decision
[8] Coffin argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of her
probation and that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to
serve one year of her previously suspended two-year sentence. We address each
of her contentions in turn.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 4 of 6
1. Probation Revocation
[9] Coffin first argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of
her 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). 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.
[10] Here, our review of the evidence reveals that the sixth petition to revoke
Coffin’s probation alleged that she had failed to attend a January 11 intake
appointment with the Community Corrections program. Coffin testified at the
revocation hearing that she had known the date of the appointment and had
failed to attend it. This evidence is sufficient to support the revocation of her
probation.
2. Order to Serve Part of Suspended Sentence
[11] Coffin also argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to
serve one year of her previously suspended two-year sentence. Once a trial court
has exercised its grace, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed
when the conditions of probation are violated. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. If this
discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 5 of 6
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.
[12] Here, Coffin argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to
serve one year of her previously suspended two-year sentence. However, the
trial court pointed out that it had learned from the past four years of working
with Coffin that she did not “do anything that anybody want[ed] [her] to do.”
(Tr. 24). The trial court therefore ordered Coffin to do the only thing that it
knew she could do, which was “sit in jail.” (Tr. 24). The trial court’s decision
is amply supported by the record and not clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before it. The trial court was well within its
discretion when it ordered Coffin to serve one year of her previously suspended
two-year sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-703 | November 30, 2018 Page 6 of 6