Joseph Adams 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
Apr 12 2012, 8:50 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:
JOHN T. WILSON GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
BRIAN REITZ
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH ADAMS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 33A04-1110-CR-562
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE HENRY CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Bob Witham, Judge
Cause No. 33D02-1106-FD-147, 33D02-0703-FD-77
April 12, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Joseph Adams appeals his sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief
and the revocation of his probation. We affirm.
Issue
Adams raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its
discretion by requiring Adams to serve his sentences in the Henry County Jail as opposed
to an alternative placement.
Facts
In 2009, Adams was convicted of two counts of Class D felony theft and
sentenced to two years in the Henry County Jail on each count, and the sentences were
ordered to be served concurrently. On May 16, 2011, the trial court modified the
sentence to two years suspended to probation.
On June 7, 2011, the State charged Adams with Class D felony residential entry
and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief for an incident that occurred on June 2,
2011. On June 27, 2011, a petition to revoke Adams’s probation was filed. On August
31, 2011, Adams pled guilty to the criminal mischief charge and admitted to violating his
probation. In exchange for Adams’s guilty plea, the State dismissed the residential entry
charge.
On September 14, 2011, the trial court sentenced Adams to sixty days in the Henry
County Jail for the criminal mischief conviction. The trial court also revoked Adams’s
probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his two-year sentence in the Henry
2
County Jail. The trial court ordered the sentence on the probation revocation to be served
consecutive to the sentence on the criminal mischief conviction. Adams now appeals
both decisions.
Analysis
Adams argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his
criminal mischief sentence and his previously-suspended two-year sentence in the Henry
County Jail as opposed to an alternative placement such as work release. In general, we
review a challenge to a trial court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion. Adams v. State,
960 N.E.2d 793, 796 (Ind. 2012) (citing Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007),
clarified on reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007)). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the
decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court.” Id. at 796-97. Likewise, a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation
violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878
N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either
probation or a community corrections program. Rather, placement in either is a ‘matter
of grace’ and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d
547, 549 (Ind. 1999).
Adams argues that his placement in the Henry County Jail was an abuse of
discretion because he pled guilty to the criminal mischief charge and admitted to the
probation violation, he had been working, no one was injured during the commission of
the offense, the criminal mischief was unlikely to reoccur, and he had been paying court-
ordered restitution. As the trial court explained, however, it had modified Adams’s two-
3
year sentence to probation less than a month before he committed the criminal mischief.
The trial court also observed that Adams was also serving probation in another county.
Under these circumstances, Adams has not established that the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering him to serve his criminal mischief sentence and the remainder of
his two-year sentence in the Henry County Jail.1
Conclusion
Adams has not established that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him
to serve his criminal mischief sentence and the remainder of his two-year sentence in the
Henry County Jail. We affirm.
Affirmed.
KIRSCH, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
1
Adams references Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) but does not develop a separate argument establishing
that his sentence is inappropriate. Thus, this argument is waived. See Allen v. State, 875 N.E.2d 783,
788 n.8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the failure to develop a separate inappropriateness argument
results in waiver).
4