Adam J. Smith v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 03 2013, 7:13 am
regarded as precedent or cited before
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:
CHRIS M. TEAGLE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
ADAM J. SMITH, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 05A05-1301-CR-41
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE BLACKFORD SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable John Nicholas Barry, Judge
Cause No. 05D01-1109-FD-384
July 3, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GARRARD, Senior Judge
As the result of a plea agreement Adam J. Smith pled guilty to theft, a class D
felony. He was sentenced to three years with one year suspended. Later the court
granted Smith’s motion for reduction or suspension of sentence, and Smith was placed on
probation for the remainder of his sentence under the court’s rules of probation. Several
months later the State filed a petition to revoke probation, and after a hearing the court
revoked Smith’s probation and ordered that the entire portion of his sentence of 675 days,
less 4 days’ credit time for a total of 671 days, be executed. Smith now appeals from the
revocation.
Smith contends that his sentence should be revised in accordance with Indiana
Appellate Rule 7, to-wit: the sentence is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the
offense and the character of the offender.” However, our supreme court has established
that Indiana Appellate Rule 7 review is not applicable when reviewing a trial court’s
action in a probation violation proceeding. Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind.
2008); Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187-88 (Ind. 2007).
Instead, in such proceedings we only review for abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878
N.E.2d at 188. We will affirm the trial court unless its decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Guillen v. State, 829
N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
Applying that standard we find no error in the court’s decision. The court
expressly found that Smith used marijuana during the period in violation of the rules of
probation and, also, failed to comply with the terms of his court-ordered day reporting
2
administered through Blackford County Community Corrections. The evidence produced
at the hearing supports both of those findings. We cannot say the decision was clearly
against the logic and effect of the circumstances. These were not simply very minor
technical violations of the rules.
The decision is therefore affirmed.
BAKER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3