Evan D. Wilford v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 11 2020, 8:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Catherine Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Evan D. Wilford, December 11, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1305
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1402-FB-350
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] Evan D. Wilford appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of his
previously suspended sentence following the court’s revocation of his
probation. Wilford presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the
trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his
previously suspended sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2014, Wilford pleaded guilty to criminal confinement, as a Class C felony.
The court accepted Wilford’s plea agreement and ordered him to serve two
years on in-home detention and suspended the remaining six years to formal
probation.
[3] In November of 2015, the State filed a notice of placement violation while
Wilford was on in-home detention. The State alleged that Wilford had failed
multiple drug screens. Wilford admitted to the violations, and the court
revoked his in-home placement.
[4] Wilford began serving his term of formal probation in May of 2016. In 2018
and 2019, the State charged Wilford with multiple new offenses over at least
nine different cause numbers. The State then filed a notice of probation
violation in this cause, which notice the State subsequently amended to include
allegations that Wilford had also tested positive for controlled substances.
[5] In February of 2020, Wilford admitted to having committed numerous new
offenses in violation of his probation. In exchange for his admission, the State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 2 of 4
recommended that Wilford be returned to probation “with the additional
condition he successfully complete residential treatment at Hamilton Center—
Oak Street.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 159. The trial court accepted the
State’s recommendation.
[6] About one week after being admitted into the Hamilton Center, Wilford was
discharged for noncompliance. In particular, he had violated the Hamilton
Center’s rules on phone usage, and he had argued with another resident. And,
when the Hamilton Center evaluated him for readmission after that discharge,
Wilford “den[ied] a need for treatment.” Id. at 169. The court revoked
Wilford’s placement on probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his
previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Wilford appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of his previously
suspended sentence. As our Supreme Court has stated:
“Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a
right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State,
878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (explaining that: “Once a trial
court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in
deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to
trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on
appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to
future defendants.”). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and
the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 3 of 4
Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014).
[8] Wilford asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to
serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. In particular, Wilford
asserts that his noncompliance with the Hamilton Center’s rules were minor
transgressions. He also asserts, relying on his own testimony to the trial court,
that he was doing well with the conditions of his probation until “restrictions
began as a result of COVID-19,” which caused Wilford to “struggle[] with
managing his ADHD, los[e] his focus, and beg[i]n making poor decisions . . . .”
Appellant’s Br. at 7.
[9] Wilford’s arguments on appeal are, at best, a request for this court to reweigh
the evidence on appeal, which we cannot do. The evidence before the trial
court demonstrates that Wilford had numerous opportunities to bring himself
into compliance with the conditions of his probation. Instead, he committed
multiple new offenses and failed a last-chance opportunity to comply with the
Hamilton Center’s requirements. We cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion when it ordered Wilford to serve the balance of his previously
suspended sentence in the Department of Correction, and we therefore affirm
the trial court’s judgment.
[10] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 4 of 4