Ricardo Willis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Nov 06 2019, 9:09 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Daniel Hageman Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
Tiffany A. McCoy
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Ricardo Willis, November 6, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-828
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No.
49G04-1706-F4-22312
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] In June of 2018, Ricardo Willis pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary. In March
of 2019, the trial court found that Willis violated the terms of his community
corrections and probation placements by committing a new criminal offense.
The trial court revoked Willis’s sentence and ordered that the remainder of it be
executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Willis contends
that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) revoking his community
corrections placement and probation and (2) ordering him to pay probation
fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 13, 2018, Willis pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary and ultimately
received a sentence of six years, with one year executed in the DOC, two years
in Marion County Community Corrections, two years suspended to probation,
and one year suspended without probation. On August 31, 2018, while in
community corrections, Willis went to Methodist Hospital for chest pains.
After Willis was discharged, the nursing staff called law enforcement to inform
them that Willis was refusing to leave and being disorderly. IU Health Police
Officer Matthew Dixon arrived at the emergency room and instructed Willis
that he needed to leave the hospital. A verbal argument ensued, during which
Officer Dixon instructed Willis to leave the hospital multiple times, which
Willis refused to do. IU Health Police Officer Dustin Dishman arrived on scene
and instructed Willis to leave the hospital three times, to which Willis replied,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 2 of 6
“F*** you, [I]’m not leaving.” Ex. 2. After being instructed to leave for a fourth
time, Willis replied that the only way to get him to leave would be to take him
to jail. Willis was arrested and taken into police custody.
[3] On August 31, 2018, a notice of violation of the terms of his community
corrections was filed against Willis. On September 20, 2018, Willis was charged
with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. On September 25, 2018, a notice
of violation of the terms of his probation was filed against Willis. On January
28, 2019, Willis pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. On
March 15, 2019, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding both notices of
violation, after which the trial court found that Willis had violated the terms.
The trial court revoked Willis’s placement in community corrections and
probation and ordered the remainder of his sentence to be executed in the
DOC.
Discussion and Decision
I. Revocation
[4] Willis contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his
community corrections placement and probation. “We treat a hearing on a
petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as
we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation.” Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d
688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 3 of 6
Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a
right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court
determines the conditions of probation and may revoke
probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has
exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in
deciding how to proceed. 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. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing
decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse
of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances.
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted).
[5] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the
entirety of Willis’s sentence. Willis violated the terms of his community
corrections placement and probation by committing a new offense, which alone
can support a revocation. See Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App.
1999) (concluding that a violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient
to revoke probation). Moreover, the nature of Willis’s violation, taken together
with his criminal history, shows a continuing disregard for authority and the
rule of law. Since 1998, Willis has been convicted of fifteen felonies and one
misdemeanor in Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, including armed robbery,
burglary, criminal confinement, stalking, theft, forgery, and battery. Willis also
has multiple probation violations; three prison-conduct incidents while in the
DOC; and, at the time of his arrest in this case, multiple outstanding arrest
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 4 of 6
warrants. Willis asks us to consider his revocation in light of his testimony that
he refused to leave the hospital because it would have amounted to a violation
of his community corrections. Willis’s testimony and credibility were
considered and weighed by the trial court. Willis’s argument is merely an
invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Luke v. State, 51
N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, Willis has failed
to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community
corrections placement and probation.
II. Probation Fees
[6] Willis contends that because his sentence was revoked before he was ever
placed on probation, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay
probation fees. Because sentencing decisions include decisions to impose fees
and costs, we review a trial court’s decision ordering fees and costs for an abuse
of discretion. Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). While
the trial court’s sentencing order in this matter included probation fees, its order
on community corrections and probation violation does not mention probation
fees nor did the trial court mention them during the revocation hearing.
Moreover, the parties agree that clarification from the trial court is needed
regarding the ordered fees. Here, Willis did not serve any time on probation,
but fees may be appropriate for the time he was in community corrections.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and
remanded with instructions for the trial court to recalculate the amount of fees
or costs owed, if any.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 6 of 6