Chealyn Colley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 10 2019, 6:36 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
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Chealyn Colley, January 10, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2290
v. Appeal from the Ripley Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sharp,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
69D01-1608-F6-160
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2290 | January 10, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Chealyn Colley appeals her sentence following the trial court’s revocation of
her probation. Colley presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether
the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve 730 days of her
previously suspended sentence in the Ripley County Jail.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In April 2017, Colley pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, as
a Level 6 felony. In exchange for her plea, the State dismissed two charges,
namely, neglect of a dependent, as a Level 6 felony, and operating a vehicle
with a controlled substance in her body, a Class C misdemeanor. In May, the
trial court accepted Colley’s guilty plea and sentenced her to 910 days with 908
days suspended to probation.
[4] On December 18, 2017, the State filed a petition for probation violation hearing
alleging that Colley had committed auto theft, as a Level 6 felony, and that she
had tested positive for methamphetamine and marijuana. On Colley’s motion,
the trial court delayed the factfinding hearing to permit Colley to undergo
inpatient treatment for substance abuse at Tara Treatment Center. Colley
completed that treatment on February 23, 2018.
[5] On March 1, the State filed its second amended petition for probation violation
hearing alleging that, in addition to the allegations set out in the first petition,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2290 | January 10, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Colley had committed possession of paraphernalia. Thereafter, the State filed
additional amended petitions for probation violation hearings alleging that, in
addition to the allegations set out in the prior petitions, Colley had committed
possession of methamphetamine, as a Level 6 felony, and maintaining a
common nuisance, a Level 6 felony.
[6] On August 22,1 the trial court held a hearing on the State’s petitions to revoke
Colley’s probation. At the hearing, Colley admitted only to the allegation that
she had committed auto theft, as a Level 6 felony, while on probation. The
court then revoked Colley’s probation and ordered her to serve 730 days of her
previously suspended sentence in the Ripley County Jail. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Colley appeals the trial court’s order that she serve 730 days of her previously
suspended sentence. Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion.
Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014). Upon finding that a
defendant has violated a condition of her probation, the trial court may “[o]rder
execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial
sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) (2017). We review the trial court’s
sentencing decision following the revocation of probation for an abuse of
discretion. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). An abuse of
discretion occurs “only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the
1
Colley failed to appear at a factfinding hearing scheduled on April 10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2290 | January 10, 2019 Page 3 of 5
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before the court. Robinson v.
State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). We will not reweigh the
evidence or reconsider witness credibility. Griffith v. State, 788 N.E.2d 835, 839-
40 (Ind. 2003). Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the
trial court’s judgment to determine if there was substantial evidence of
probative value to support the court’s ruling. Id.
[8] Here, Colley asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her
to serve 730 days of her previously suspended sentence because her substance
abuse “had substantially contributed to her prior criminal conduct,” she had
stayed “sober and had ceased engaging in criminal behavior” for
“approximately eight months prior to her sentencing,” and she was making
progress in battling her substance abuse and maintaining a stable lifestyle.
Appellant’s Br. at 12. However, Colley’s contentions on appeal amount to a
request that we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
[9] The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and was within
the court’s sound discretion. The trial court originally suspended all but two
days of Colley’s sentence. In December 2017, Colley committed auto theft, as a
Level 6 felony. That single violation is sufficient to support the revocation of
her probation. And while Colley’s efforts to overcome her substance abuse are
laudable, the court’s order that she serve 730 days of her suspended sentence is
supported by the record and well within the trial court’s discretion. We affirm
the court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2290 | January 10, 2019 Page 4 of 5
[10] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2290 | January 10, 2019 Page 5 of 5