Justin Hoskins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 21 2019, 7:45 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Steven E. Ripstra Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Ripstra Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Jasper, Indiana
Ian McLean
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Justin Hoskins, June 21, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-7
v. Appeal from the Martin Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynne E. Ellis,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
51C01-1708-F6-182
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 1 of 4
[1] Justin Hoskins appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation, arguing
that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve a portion of his previously
suspended sentence in jail and consecutive to another sentence. Finding no
error, we affirm.
[2] On January 25, 2018, Hoskins pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine in exchange for a sentence of 547 days, with 505 days
suspended and 16 months on probation. His conditional release on probation
began that same day.
[3] Less than four months later, on April 12, 2018, Hoskins tested positive for
methamphetamine and alcohol use. On June 11, 2018, he committed Class C
misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in Orange County. On June 13,
2018, he tested positive for methamphetamine. On June 24, 2018, he failed to
appear for a probation appointment. On August 10, 2018, the State filed a
petition to revoke Hoskins’s probation.
[4] On August 15, 2018, Hoskins was charged with Class A misdemeanor driving
while suspended in Lawrence County.1 He later failed to appear for a hearing
in that case and a warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was still
outstanding when, on September 7, 2018, Hoskins was arrested on the warrant
issued for the probation revocation petition in this case. On August 22, 2018,
he received a suspended sentence in the Orange County case; a petition to
1
That charge was still pending at the time of the probation revocation hearing in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 2 of 4
revoke probation in that case was pending during the hearing on Hoskins’s
probation in this case.
[5] At an October 11, 2018, hearing, Hoskins admitted to the allegations of the
petition to revoke his probation. An evidentiary hearing took place regarding
the sanction to be imposed by the trial court for the allegations. After hearing
evidence and argument, the trial court revoked his previously suspended
sentence, ordering him to remain in jail until January 15, 2019, after which he
would be eligible to be released to community corrections. His sentence was to
be served consecutively to his sentences in the operating while intoxicated and
driving while suspended cases. Hoskins now appeals.
[6] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion rather than a right to
which a defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
The trial court determines the conditions of probation, and if the conditions are
violated, the trial court may revoke probation. Id. The judge has “considerable
leeway in deciding how to proceed,” and we will reverse only if the decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.[7] Hoskins began regularly violating the terms of his probation in April 2018, and
his violations continued unabated until he was finally arrested. His explanation
for his actions was, essentially, to blame Orange County court personnel and
the fact that he was “freaking out” about his girlfriend’s pregnancy. Tr. Vol. II
p. 40. He told the trial court that he was ready to turn his life around and make
better choices, given the impending birth of his child, but the trial court was free
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 3 of 4
to discount this claim given the history of Hoskins’s behavior while on
probation. Likewise, the trial court was free to consider Hoskins’s claims that
he has participated in substance abuse treatment in the past, has qualified to
become a volunteer fire fighter, intends to seek new friends, and believes he can
successfully resolve his other legal problems, as well as the probation
department’s recommendation that Hoskins serve his time on home detention,
in light of his repeated and continual violations of probation in this case.
[8] We find that the trial court did not err by revoking probation or ordering
Hoskins to serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 4 of 4