Dacota Hughes 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 Apr 20 2020, 10:10 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
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, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dacota Hughes, April 20, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2285
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1609-F3-2644
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Dacota Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals an order of the trial court that revoked his
probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended
sentence. He presents the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion
when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] Hughes pled guilty to attempted robbery as a Level 5 felony. He was sentenced
to six years, with three of those years executed and three suspended to
probation. As ordered, on January 4, 2019, Hughes was released and placed on
probation. He attended his first probation meeting but thereafter failed to
appear. Based upon this violation, the State filed a petition to revoke.
[3] The trial court conducted a hearing on this petition and found Hughes in
violation and revoked his probation. The court ordered Hughes to serve the
suspended portion of his sentence. Hughes now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Probation may be revoked where: (1) the person violated a condition of the
probation during the probationary period; and (2) the petition to revoke
probation was filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of one
year after termination of probation or forty-five days after the state receives
notification. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). Hughes does not challenge the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 2 of 4
timing of the State’s petition to revoke; rather, he contends that the trial court
abused its discretion by ordering that he serve the balance of his suspended
sentence.
[5] Where the court finds a person has violated a condition of probation, 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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order the
execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial
sentencing. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h).1 Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in
adjudicating a probation violation. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.
2007). We review that decision only for an abuse of discretion, which occurs
when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id. It is well within the trial court’s discretion to determine the
conditions of probation and revoke it if the conditions are violated. Id. When a
trial court exercises its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration,
the judge has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id.[6] Hughes violated a condition of his probation soon after it began by failing to
attend his meetings with the probation officer. Moreover, Hughes has a history
of violating probation. In 2010, Hughes was convicted of intimidation and
criminal mischief and was sentenced to one and one-half years on probation.
1
Unlike a juvenile justice matter, there is no requirement upon the judge to consider the least restrictive
placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 3 of 4
In that case, Hughes violated his probation, served sixty-four days in jail, and
was then placed back on probation, which he later violated a second time. In
his adult life, Hughes has been placed on probation five separate times and has
incurred numerous violations. Ultimately, in the bulk of these placements,
Hughes completed his sentence without satisfactorily completing the terms of
his probation.
[7] Hughes has a history of probation violations. He has repeatedly demonstrated
his contempt for the grace bestowed upon him by the court. Here, he has failed
once again to successfully comply with the terms of his probation. We cannot
say that the trial court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances. To the contrary, the trial court acted well within its
discretion to order Hughes to serve the remainder of his previously suspended
sentence.
[8] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 4 of 4