Benton Lee Courtney, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED
Feb 27 2017, 9:31 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Michael Frischkorn Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Fortville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Benton Courtney, February 27, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1604-CR-864
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark Dudley,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48C06-1504-F5-491
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 1 of 8
Statement of the Case
[1] Benton Courtney appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and its
order that he serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. Courtney
raises two issues for our review, namely:
1. Whether the trial court erred when it rejected Courtney’s
proffered affirmative defense of necessity.
2. Whether the court abused its discretion when it ordered
Courtney to serve the entirety of his previously suspended
sentence.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On November 30, 2015, Courtney pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
agreement, to possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 5 felony;
maintaining a common nuisance, as a Level 6 felony; and theft, as a Class A
misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the State recommended that
Courtney receive a three-year sentence suspended to probation. The trial court
accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Courtney accordingly.
[4] Less than one month later, Courtney led Alexandria Police Department
Officers Michael Montgomery and Joe Heath on a high-speed chase through a
residential neighborhood. In particular, the officers observed Courtney cross
double-yellow lines and drive seventy miles per hour in a twenty-mile-per-hour
residential zone. They also observed Courtney twice fail to stop at four-way
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 2 of 8
stops in that residential area. And, during the chase, the officers observed
Courtney laughing.
[5] Courtney eventually complied with the officers’ demands to stop his vehicle.
The officers then ordered Courtney out of the vehicle. Also inside the vehicle
were Myra Applegate, Courtney’s mother, in the front passenger’s seat and
Kayla Short in the back seat along with two children younger than two years
old.
[6] After the officers had placed Courtney in a patrol vehicle, Short and Applegate
stated that Courtney had been trying to get Applegate to a hospital because she
had been having seizures. The officers called for paramedics, but, upon their
arrival, Applegate told them that “she was not having a seizure and she felt
fine.” Tr. at 32.
[7] Thereafter, the State filed a notice of probation violation in which the State
alleged that Courtney had committed several new offenses, namely, resisting
law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; neglect of a dependent, as a Level 6
felony; and criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony. The State further alleged
that, shortly before the traffic incident, Courtney had tested positive for
methamphetamine and amphetamine.
[8] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the State’s notice of probation
violation. At that hearing, Courtney admitted to the failed drug test, but he
argued that his traffic violations were justified under the doctrine of necessity
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 3 of 8
because he needed to get his mother to a hospital. The trial court, not
convinced, stated:
I heard your explanation for why this happened and it’s[,] put
very bluntly, not believable, not even close. You[’re] driving
away from the . . . hospital that’s in close proximity of your
home . . . . Secondly[,] if I’d say that’s okay . . . , you’re going to
the next closest hospital, you leave the most direct route to get
there[] to enter into a residential area where . . . you go at a high
rate of speed . . . away from the closest hospital. If you’re truly
going to the hospital, even if there is a police officer behind you,
you don’t start going into residential areas away from your
intended . . . destination. That is not objectively reasonable, that
is anything but reasonable on any standard . . . . You had other
alternatives available to you, you could call an ambulance.
Again, even if you were going to the hospital . . . that does not
give you leave to cross double yellow lines, we have evidence of
that. That does not give you leave to go seventy miles an hour in
a twenty mile an hour zone, we have evidence of that. [A]s I
said, it’s not even close. Your explanation does not hold
water . . . .
Id. at 42-43. The court then revoked Courtney’s placement on probation and
ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Standard of Review
[9] Courtney argues on appeal that the trial court erroneously rejected his defense
of necessity and that the court abused its discretion when it ordered him to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 4 of 8
serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. As the Indiana
Supreme Court has stated:
“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 discretion of the
trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke
probation if the conditions are violated. Id. In appeals from trial
court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we
review for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs
where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances, id., or when the trial court misinterprets
the law, see State v. Cozart, 897 N.E.2d 478, 483 (Ind. 2008) (citing
Axsom v. Axsom, 565 N.E.2d 1097, 1099 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
(“An abuse of discretion may also be found when the trial court
misinterprets the law or disregards factors listed in the controlling
statute.”)).
Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). We address each of
Courtney’s arguments in turn.
Issue One: Necessity Defense
[10] We first consider Courtney’s argument that the trial court erred when it rejected
his proffered affirmative defense of necessity. As we have explained:
In order to prevail on a claim of necessity, the defendant must
show (1) the act charged as criminal must have been done to
prevent a significant evil, (2) there must have been no adequate
alternative to the commission of the act, (3) the harm caused by
the act must not be disproportionate to the harm avoided, (4) the
accused must entertain a good faith belief that his act was
necessary to prevent greater harm, (5) such belief must be
objectively reasonable under all the circumstances, and (6) the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 5 of 8
accused must not have substantially contributed to the creation of
the emergency. Toops v. State, 643 N.E.2d 387, 390 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1994). In order to negate a claim of necessity [in a criminal
trial], the State must disprove at least one element of the defense
beyond a reasonable doubt. See Pointer v. State, 585 N.E.2d 33,
36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (discussing State’s burden in the context
of an analogous self-defense claim). The State may refute a claim
of the defense of necessity by direct rebuttal, or by relying upon
the sufficiency of the evidence in its case-in-chief. Id. The
decision whether a claim of necessity has been disproved is
entrusted to the fact-finder. Id.Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27, 29 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
[11] Courtney’s entire argument on this issue on appeal is a request for this court to
credit and give controlling weight to his testimony instead of the testimony of
the officers involved in the traffic incident. We will not reweigh the evidence
on appeal or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. The trial court acted
within its discretion when it found Courtney’s proffered defense “not
believable,” “not objectively reasonable,” and “not even close.” Tr. at 42-43.
We affirm the trial court’s rejection of Courtney’s affirmative defense and the
revocation of his probation.
Issue Two: Imposition of Entirety of
Previously Suspended Sentence
[12] Courtney also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered
him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. Courtney’s
entire argument on this issue is as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 6 of 8
Courtney admitted to a dirty drug screen and using
methamphetamine[,] which saved the State time and effort to
prove the violation. Also, this is the first probation violation and
it does not rise to the level of revoking probation and ordering
that Courtney serve the previously suspended sentence. At the
time of the initial sentencing, the underlying conviction was
Courtney’s only felony conviction. Courtney has been
cooperative from the initial guilty plea in this case to the
probation violation admission.
Appellant’s Br. at 10.1
[13] We cannot agree with Courtney. The evidence before the trial court
demonstrated that, less than one month after he had been placed on probation,
Courtney used illicit substances and committed new offenses of resisting law
enforcement, as a Level 6 felony; neglect of a dependent, as a Level 6 felony;
and criminal recklessness, as a Level 6 felony. And the facts underlying
Courtney’s new offenses demonstrate an egregious disregard for law
enforcement and the safety of others, including two very young children who
were in his vehicle at the time of the offenses. Based on the facts before the trial
court, the court’s imposition of the entirety of Courtney’s previously suspended
sentence was well within its discretion. As such, we affirm the court’s
judgment.
1
We do not interpret Courtney’s argument on this issue to be a challenge to the revocation of his probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 7 of 8
[14] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-864 | February 27, 2017 Page 8 of 8