Sadeeq Danbala v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
Aug 14 2012, 8:54 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DEBORAH MARKISOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SADEEQ DANBALA, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-1201-CR-27
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge
Cause No. 49G04-1006-FB-49661
August 14, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAILEY, Judge
Case Summary
Sadeeq Danbala (“Danbala”) appeals the revocation of his probation, presenting the
sole issue of whether there is sufficient evidence to support the revocation. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On March 11, 2011, Danbala pled guilty to Sexual Misconduct with a Minor, as a
Class C felony.1 He received an eight-year sentence, with six years suspended. He was also
placed on probation, with sex offender conditions, for three years. Among the conditions of
Danbala’s probation were that he was required to “attend, actively participate in and
successfully complete an approved sex offender treatment program as directed by the
probation department” and maintain a single, verifiable residence in Marion County. (App.
70.)
On November 22, 2011, the State filed a Notice of Probation Violation alleging that
Danbala had committed four probation violations. On January 4, 2012, the trial court
conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that Danbala had violated two terms of his
probation, by failing to complete sex offender therapy and failing to maintain a single,
verifiable residence. The trial court revoked Danbala’s probation and ordered that he serve
his suspended sentence. Danbala now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Danbala challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation of his
probation, claiming that his odd work hours caused him to have difficulty getting to sex
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9.
2
offender therapy sessions on time, and arguing that the evidence supported an inference that
he had maintained a residence at an apartment on Ashley Lane.
A probation revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding and, therefore, a
violation need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Washington v. State, 758
N.E.2d 1014, 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). In determining whether there is sufficient evidence
to support a probation revocation, we use the same standard of review as with other
sufficiency matters. Downs v. State, 827 N.E.2d 646, 651 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans.
denied. We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the State, along with the
reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Id.Danbala was enrolled, upon referral by his probation officer, in a sex offender
treatment program at Concepts in Coping in Indianapolis. His therapist, Carolyn Potts
(“Potts”), testified that Danbala had, on September 27, 2011, signed a treatment contract
including behavioral standards of compliance. One standard required calling ahead to report
tardiness. Potts testified that, for the six weekly therapy sessions between October 13, 2011
and December 1, 2011, Danbala was on time on only one occasion. He was tardy to his first
session on October 13. He was forty minutes late to his October 27 session and one hour late
to the November 3 meeting. Danbala was warned that he would be denied access if he was
again tardy; however, on November 10, he arrived thirty-five minutes late and was denied
access. He was absent from subsequent sessions.2 In each instance, he had failed to call to
2
When Danbala failed to appear on November 17, the probation department was alerted. When Danbala did
not appear or call on December 1, a termination letter was sent to the probation department.
3
provide an explanation for tardiness or absence. The State presented sufficient evidence to
establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Danbala violated a term of his probation.
We need not decide whether there is also sufficient evidence that Danbala failed to
maintain a single, verifiable residence,3 because a trial court may revoke a person’s probation
upon evidence of the violation of any single term of probation. Washington v. State, 758
N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). There is sufficient evidence to support the
revocation of Danbala’s probation.
Affirmed.
RILEY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
3
Jeanine Faulkner (“Faulkner”), Danbala’s probation officer, testified that she had visited Danbala’s reported
residence on eight occasions from August 26 through November 9, 2011. He was present only once, an
occasion when he had an appointment for residence verification. Upon initiating a search in November of
2011, Faulkner found that Danbala had minimal clothing, no bed, and no toothbrush at the residence.
4