Tyrone R. McGee v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before Jun 30 2014, 10:05 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:
LEANNA WEISSMANN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
CHANDRA K. HEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TYRONE R. MCGEE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A05-1311-CR-575
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship, Judge
Cause No.15D02-0707-FD-221
June 30, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Tyrone R. McGee appeals the revocation of his probation. He argues the court abused
its discretion when sending him back to prison for a year and a half because he admitted his
lapse and was cooperative. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
McGee pled guilty to possession of marijuana with a prior conviction, and he was
sentenced to 1095 days with 915 days suspended to probation. As a condition of his
probation, McGee was not to ingest alcohol or illegal substances and was to keep his
probation officer informed of his current address. On February 12, 2008, the court revoked
ninety-two days of McGee’s suspended sentence because he violated his probation by not
reporting as directed.
On July 1, 2008, the State filed a notice of probation violation that alleged McGee
failed a drug screening and did not notify probation of his current address. A warrant was
issued for his arrest, but McGee was not arrested until October 2013. McGee admitted
violating probation and the trial court revoked 550 days of his suspended sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
McGee alleges the court abused its discretion by revoking 550 days of his probation.
When reviewing a revocation decision, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the
judgment without assessing credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124,
126 (Ind. 2005). We affirm unless the trial court abused its discretion. Sanders v. State, 825
N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
McGee admitted his violation, and “[p]roof of a single violation of the conditions of
2
probation is sufficient to support the decision to revoke probation.” Bussberg v. State, 827
N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. On finding a defendant violated his
probation, the trial court may “order execution of all or part of the sentence that was
suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(3).
McGee has an extensive criminal history that includes felony convictions in multiple
states. After he failed a drug test in 2008, he evaded law enforcement for five years, during
which he committed additional crimes in Arkansas. In addition, this was McGee’s second
violation of his probation and both violations involved keeping the probation department
notified of his whereabouts. As the trial court has the discretion to consider how McGee’s
sentence would be best served, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
McGee’s probation. See Kirby v. State, 746 N.E.2d 440, 443-44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (stating
the trial court is entitled to consider where defendant’s sentence would best be served), trans.
denied. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
3