Craylon D. Bell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )


Menu:
  • MEMORANDUM DECISION
    Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),                           FILED
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be                       May 23 2016, 8:51 am
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    CLERK
    court except for the purpose of establishing                 Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    the defense of res judicata, collateral                           and Tax Court
    estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                  ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Cara Schaefer Wieneke                                   Gregory F. Zoeller
    Wieneke Law Office, LLC                                 Attorney General
    Brooklyn, Indiana
    Michael Gene Worden
    Deputy Attorney General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Graylon D. Bell,                                        May 23, 2016
    Appellant-Defendant,                                    Court of Appeals Case No.
    84A04-1511-CR-1851
    v.                                              Appeal from the Vigo Superior
    Court
    State of Indiana,                                       The Honorable John T. Roach,
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                                     Judge
    Trial Court Cause No.
    84D01-1308-FC-2405
    Vaidik, Chief Judge.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016   Page 1 of 5
    Case Summary
    [1]   The trial court revoked Graylon D. Bell’s probation and ordered him to serve
    his entire suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Bell
    now appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering
    him to serve “the maximum sentence.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Given Bell’s
    extensive criminal history and numerous probation violations, we conclude that
    the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Bell to serve his entire
    suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his probation merely four months
    after being released from the DOC. We therefore affirm.
    Facts and Procedural History
    [2]   In August 2013, the State charged Bell with Class C felony intimidation and
    with being a habitual offender. Bell and the State entered into a plea
    agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, Bell pled guilty to intimidation and
    admitted being a habitual offender. The trial court, in accordance with the plea
    agreement, sentenced Bell to an aggregate term of ten years, with four years
    executed at the DOC, six years suspended, and a minimum of two years on
    probation. Appellant’s App. p. 168.
    [3]   Bell was released from the DOC in April 2015 and signed his probation
    conditions in June 2015. Then, in August 2015, the probation department filed
    a notice of probation violation. The notice alleged that Bell violated his
    probation for (1) committing a new offense (domestic battery) on August 19; (2)
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016   Page 2 of 5
    failing to report a change of address within forty-eight hours; and (3) missing a
    probation appointment on August 12. Following a hearing, the trial court
    found that Bell violated his probation for all three reasons. Id. at 189. The trial
    court then revoked Bell’s probation and ordered him to serve “the remainder of
    his suspended sentence of six (6) years” in the DOC. Id. at 192.
    [4]   Bell now appeals.
    Discussion and Decision
    [5]   Bell contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve
    his entire suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his probation. Once a
    trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
    incarceration, “the judge should have considerable leeway in how to proceed.”
    Prewitt v. State, 
    878 N.E.2d 184
    , 187 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not
    given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial
    judges might be less inclined to order probation. 
    Id.
     Accordingly, a trial court’s
    sentencing decision for a probation violation is reviewable under the abuse-of-
    discretion standard. 
    Id.
     An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is
    clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. 
    Id.
    [6]   Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine
    that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State,
    
    892 N.E.2d 637
    , 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial
    court must decide whether the violation warrants revocation of probation. 
    Id.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016   Page 3 of 5
    If the trial court finds that the probationer violated a condition of probation at
    any time before the probationary period ended, then the court may:
    (1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying
    or enlarging the conditions.
    (2) Extend the person’s probationary period for not more than
    one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
    (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was
    suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
    
    Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3
    (h).
    [7]   On appeal, Bell does not contest that he violated the terms of his probation;
    instead, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to
    serve “the maximum sentence of 6 years.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. He claims that
    “a shorter period of incarceration followed by placement in a community
    corrections program would have been a more appropriate disposition in this
    case.” Id. at 7-8.
    [8]   As Bell concedes, he has “a lengthy criminal history.” Id. at 7. This history,
    which comprises nine pages of his PSI, includes convictions for, among other
    things, disorderly conduct, criminal conversion, child molesting, criminal
    trespass, battery, battery by means of a deadly weapon, theft, rape, invasion of
    privacy, stalking, operating a vehicle as an HTV, failure to return to lawful
    detention, and residential entry. In addition, also as Bell concedes, he has
    violated probation numerous times. Given Bell’s extensive criminal history and
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016   Page 4 of 5
    failed probations, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it ordered
    Bell to serve his entire suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his
    probation, again, by committing yet another crime merely four months after
    being released from the DOC.
    [9]   Affirmed.
    Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016   Page 5 of 5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84A04-1511-CR-1851

Filed Date: 5/23/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/23/2016