Shelton B. Stephens v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 12 2014, 10:25 am
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:
ZACHARY A. WITTE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Locke & Witte Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
CHANDRA K. HEIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SHELTON B. STEPHENS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 02A03-1311-CR-439
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Samuel R. Keirns, Magistrate
Cause No. 02D04-1003-FB-47
June 12, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Appellant-defendant Shelton Stephens appeals the trial court’s revocation of his
probation and argues that the trial court erred when it ordered the remainder of his
suspended sentence to be executed. Stephens contends that his violations were minor or
technical in nature and asserts that he never viewed the videos that were the subject of the
violation. In light of Stephens’s failure to adhere to the requirements of his probation, we
cannot say that the trial court erred in revoking his probation or in executing the
remainder of his suspended sentence. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
FACTS
On March 18, 2010, Stephens was charged with rape and contributing to the
delinquency of a minor. On September 2, 2010, he pleaded guilty to both charges.
Stephens was sentenced to ten years on the rape charge with six years suspended and to
one year for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The sentences were to be served
concurrently.
In July 2013, Stephens was placed on Allen County Community Control. As
Stephens pleaded guilty to rape, he was subject to additional probation conditions listed
in the Allen County Community Corrections Sex-Offender Addendum (Addendum).
One of the conditions in the Addendum stated: “I shall not possess or view any matter
that depicts, describes, or represents nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-
masochistic abuse.” State’s Ex. 1; Tr. p. 13-14. At the probation revocation hearing,
2
Allen County Probation employees Ryan Koch and Ashely Cameron testified that
Stephens consented to the Addendum during intake procedures.
On August 8, 2013, Allen County Community Correction field officer Douglas
Guillaume conducted an unannounced home visit with Stephens. Guillaume found a
stack of DVDs. In it he discovered four DVDs that appeared to contain nudity and sexual
conduct; one DVD stated that it contained a scene of rape. After viewing the films, the
trial court determined that three of the DVDs, State’s Exhibits 2, 4, and 5, contained
inappropriate material.
The trial court revoked the remainder of Stephen’s suspended sentence and
committed him to the Department of Corrections for two years. Stephens was granted
seventy-five days of jail-time credit and twenty-one days of home detention credit.
Stephens now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The decision to revoke probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court.
Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for
an abuse of discretion. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider
only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or
judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of
his probation, this Court will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at
639-40.
3
Stephens argues that the trial court erred in executing the remainder of his
suspended sentence. More particularly, Stephens contends that the violations were minor
and technical in nature and states that he did not view the videos that were the subject of
the violations. He also maintains that, while they may contain material in violation of the
sex offender rules, the videos that are the subject of the violation do not focus on the
prohibited material and do not contain a significant amount of the prohibited material.
The evidence at the probation revocation hearing showed that Stephens possessed
movies that contained prohibited material in violation of the Addendum. The trial court
heard evidence that Stephens was aware of the requirements of the Addendum.
Moreover, the trial court viewed the DVDs and found that they did contain inappropriate
material. Moreover, Stephens concedes that he violated his probation; he argues only
that the violation did not warrant the revocation of his probation. Appellant’s Br. p. 11.
As noted above, if we find there is substantial evidence of probative value to
support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of his probation, we
will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639-40.
In light of the evidence and Stephen’s concession that he did violate his probation, we
find that there was substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s
determination that Stephens violated his probation.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
4