Andy Godsey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 16 2018, 9:14 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
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Henry A. Flores, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Andy Godsey, July 16, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
17A-CR-3026
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
84D01-1010-FD-3356
84D01-1102-FD-561
84D01-1107-FD-2305
84D01-1110-FD-3288
84D01-1706-F5-1957
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Andy Godsey (Godsey), appeals the trial court’s
revocation of his home detention.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Godsey presents two issues on appeal, which we consolidate and restate as the
following single issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
revoked Godsey’s community correction placement in home detention.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On November 22, 2011, Godsey and the State entered into a written plea
agreement, whereby Godsey agreed to plead guilty to the following charges:
Class D felony theft under cause number 84D01-1102-FD-561 (FD-561); Class
D felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator under cause number
84D01-1107-FD-2305 (FD-2305); Class D felony operating a vehicle as an
habitual traffic violator under cause number 84D01-1110-FD-3288 (FD-3288);
and Class D felony theft under cause number 84D01-1010-FD-3356 (FD-3356).
Sentencing was left open to the trial court, however, the parties agreed to cap
Godsey’s aggregate sentence at eight years. On January 3, 2012, the trial court
sentenced Godsey to consecutive one and one-half year sentences under each
Cause, for an aggregate sentence of six years with two years “executed on In-
Home Detention as direct placement, followed by four (4) years on formal
probation.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 110).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 6
[5] The record shows that on September 15, 2016, the State filed a petition to
revoke Godsey’s probation under FD-0561, FD-2305, FD-3356, and FD-3288.
On December 8, 2016, Godsey admitted to violating his probation and the trial
court ordered Godsey to “execute one (1) year of his originally suspended
sentences” under the previous cases, for an aggregate sentence of four years, all
to be served in home detention. (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 159).
[6] On February 1, 2017, under Cause Number 84D01-1706-F5-001957 (F5-1957),
the State charged Godsey with burglary, a Level 5 felony; and theft, a Class A
misdemeanor. Based on Godsey’s new criminal charges, on February 27, 2017,
the State filed yet another petition to revoke Godsey’s probation. On December
5, 2017, pursuant to an agreement, Godsey pleaded guilty to the Level 5 felony
burglary offense under F5-1957. While the parties had agreed to cap Godsey’s
sentence at eight years, sentencing was left open to the trial court. In addition,
Godsey admitted to violating the terms of his community correction placement
by virtue of the new offense. On the same day, the trial court ordered Godsey
to serve five years for the burglary offense on work release. The trial court then
revoked Godsey’s placement in home detention and ordered him to serve the
balance of his suspended two and one-half year sentences under Causes FD-
561, FD-2305, and FD-3288 on work release. 1 Godsey’s sentences were to run
consecutively, for an aggregate sentence of seven and one-half years.
1
The record shows that by that time, Godsey had completed his sentence under FD-3356.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 6
[7] Godsey now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[8] Initially, we note the standard of review on appeal from the revocation of direct
placement in home detention mirrors that for revocation of probation. Cox v.
State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). “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). “The trial court determined
the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are
violated.” Id. If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any
time before termination of the probation period, and the petition to revoke is
filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one or more
sanctions, including ordering execution of all or part of the sentence that was
suspended at the time of the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). A
trial court’s discretion for imposing sanctions for probation violations is
reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d
952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs
where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.
[9] We acknowledge Godsey admitted violating the terms of his placement in
home detention by committing a new offense. It is well established that a
“single violation of the conditions of probation is sufficient to support the [trial
court’s] decision to revoke probation.” Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. Based on his admission, the trial court ordered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 6
Godsey to serve his previously suspended aggregate sentence of two and one-
half years under FD-561, FD-2305, and FD-3288 on work release. Godsey
contends that the trial court should have instead returned him to home
detention. After Godsey made this same argument to the trial court, and the
trial court stated
In-home detention is not appropriate. [] I’m not rewarding you
by putting you back on in-home detention when you didn’t
comply with it in the first instance. So right now my options are
work release or DOC . . .
(Tr. Vol. II, p. 66). In deciding what sanction to impose, the trial court noted
that Godsey had repeatedly violated the terms of his home detention, thereby
demonstrating that he was undeterred by the authority of the trial court or the
threat of punishment. Despite Godsey’s commission of the new offense, the
trial court exercised leniency at sentencing and ordered Godsey to serve the
balance of his sentence under FD-561, FD-2305, and FD-3288 on work release.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering Godsey to serve the balance of his sentence on work release.
CONCLUSION
[10] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in revoking Godsey’s placement in home detention, and ordering him to serve
the remainder of his sentence on work release.
[11] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[12] May, J. and Mathias, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 17A-CR-3026 | July 16, 2018 Page 6 of 6