Charles Gaylor v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before Jul 29 2014, 6:15 am
any 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:
JEFFREY E. STRATMAN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Aurora, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
CHARLES GAYLOR, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A01-1312-CR-520
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, Judge
Cause No. 15D01-0602-FA-1
July 29, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GARRARD, Senior Judge
Charles Gaylor appeals the sentence the trial court imposed upon him after he
admitted to violating the terms of his probation. We affirm.
In 2005, as the result of a plea agreement, Gaylor was sentenced to twenty years,
with twelve years suspended, for a class B felony of attempting to manufacture
methamphetamine.
In 2012 he was charged with a probation violation. At the time he was living in
Dalton, Georgia. He had refused to submit to a drug test and was charged and convicted
in Georgia with four offenses of dealing in a controlled substance.
In the probation revocation proceeding Gaylor admitted the violations. Disposition
was left open for the court. The court revoked ten years of Gaylor’s suspended sentence
and provided that probation would terminate at the conclusion of the ten year sentence.
Gaylor contends on appeal that the sentence was an abuse of discretion. The State
argues on cross-appeal that this appeal is untimely. We disagree and address Gaylor’s
claim.
Initially, we note that Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) does not apply to a sentence
imposed for a probation violation. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187-88 (Ind. 2007).
As the Prewitt court went on to state:
Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion . . . the judge should
have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. . . . 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.”
2
Id. at 188 (emphasis added, internal citations omitted); see also Wilkerson v. State, 918
N.E.2d 458, 464 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
Here the court considered Gaylor’s prior offenses and the nature of the violations in
imposing sentence. He violated the terms of probation in two previous cases. Even though
Gaylor produced some evidence of his attempt to effect his rehabilitation, we cannot say
that the court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C.J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3