Benjamin David Stein v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jan 31 2020, 10:17 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Catherine Brizzi
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Benjamin David Stein, January 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1841
v. Appeal from the Fountain Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephanie S.
Appellee-Plaintiff Campbell, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
23C01-1605-F6-163
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1841 | January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Benjamin Stein (“Stein”) appeals the trial court’s judgment ordering him to
serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence after he violated
probation. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Stein to
serve the balance of his previous suspended sentence after he
violated probation.
Facts
[3] In October 2016, Stein pled guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony theft. The
following month, the trial court sentenced him to 1190 days of probation. One
of the terms of his probation was that he not violate any laws.
[4] In September 2017, the probation department filed a notice of violation alleging
that Stein had violated probation by committing the offenses of Class A
misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class B misdemeanor leaving the
scene of an accident. Stein pled guilty to those offenses and was sentenced to
one year of probation. The probation department dismissed the notice of
violation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1841 | January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 5
[5] In March 2019, the probation department filed a second notice of violation
alleging that Stein had violated his probation by committing the offenses of
residential entry and criminal trespass. Stein pled guilty to Class A
misdemeanor criminal trespass in that case.
[6] At a subsequent probation revocation hearing, Stein admitted that he had
violated probation when he committed the offense of criminal trespass. He
asked the trial court to release him back to probation.
[7] The trial court pointed out that this was Stein’s second probation violation and
told Stein that it was “just not understanding why you wouldn’t have taken this
very seriously.” (Tr at 23). The trial court ordered Stein to serve the balance of
his suspended sentence and explained its decision as follows:
You made a deal with this Court that you would behave. You
had the one that you were convicted of, now another that you are
convicted of. All right? And you knew what the consequences
were. You absolutely – you know the ropes. You understand
how this works. You want to go out and keep committing crimes
then this is what’s going to happen. A deal is a deal. I say it
every day, all day.
(Tr. 24). Stein now appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of
his suspended sentence.
Decision
[8] Stein argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the
balance of his previously suspended sentence after he violated probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1841 | January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5
“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). Once a trial court has exercised its grace, it has considerable leeway in
deciding how to proceed when the conditions of probation are violated. Id. If
this discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too
severely on appeal, trial courts might be less inclined to order probation. Id.
Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decision for a probation violation is
reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when
the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person has violated his probation
before termination of the probationary period, the court may order execution of
all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial
sentencing. IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3.
[9] Here, Stein argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to
serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. However, the trial
court pointed out that although Stein had agreed to commit no criminal
offenses while on probation, Stein had twice committed additional offenses. In
addition, Stein knew the potential consequences for committing those
additional offenses. Based on these facts, the trial court’s decision to order
Stein to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence is not clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, and the trial
court did not abuse its discretion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1841 | January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 5
[10] Affirmed.
May, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1841 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 5