Matthew R. Eden v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jan 30 2015, 11:03 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John P. Wilson Gregory F. Zoeller
Wilson & Wilson Attorney General of Indiana
Greenwood, Indiana
Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Matthew R. Eden, January 30, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
41A05-1405-CR-211
v. Appeal from the Johnson Circuit
Court
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff
Pyle, Judge
Statement of the Case
[1] Appellant/Defendant, Matthew R. Eden (“Eden”), appeals the trial court’s
revocation of his probation and imposition of his previously suspended sentence
after he violated his probation for his conviction of Class C felony possession of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 1 of 7
a controlled substance. On appeal, Eden argues that the trial court should have
allowed him to serve the remainder of his sentence on work release because he
had completed a majority of his probation successfully, was gainfully
employed, and had a wife and children to support. We conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Eden to serve his previously
suspended sentence where Eden violated his probation by consuming drugs and
failed to take advantage of the alternatives to incarceration granted to him in
the past.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
[3] Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Eden to serve his
previously suspended sentence after he violated his probation.
Facts
[4] On September 13, 2010, Eden pled guilty to Class C felony possession of a
controlled substance. On January 28, 2011, the trial court entered a judgment
of conviction and sentenced him to four years suspended to probation with
home detention.1 The trial court also ordered Eden to attend some sort of
outpatient treatment program with Johnson County Alcohol and Drug
Services.
1
Eden did not include a copy of the trial court’s sentencing order in his Appellant’s Appendix.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 2 of 7
[5] Shortly thereafter, Eden requested a modification of his sentence. On July 18,
2011, the trial court granted the modification, stayed the home detention
component of Eden’s sentence, and placed him on probation with an added
condition of ninety days of daily reporting and payment of outstanding
Community Corrections fees. Thereafter, on January 12, 2012, the trial court
held a modification status hearing and waived Eden’s home detention
requirement.
[6] Subsequently, on August 27, 2013, the Johnson County Probation Department
filed an “Original” petition to revoke Eden’s probation.2 (App. 13). On
November 21, 2013, the trial court held an initial hearing, and Eden denied
violating the conditions of his probation. The trial court then set the fact-
finding hearing for February 10, 2014.
[7] On February 10, 2014, the State and Eden appeared for the hearing. Upon
Eden’s motion for a continuance, the trial court reset the hearing for April 21,
2014.
[8] In the meantime, on February 19, 2014, the Johnson County Probation
Department filed an amended petition to revoke Eden’s probation, alleging that
Eden had failed to: report to the probation department at any time; submit to a
substance test within a reasonable time period and pay the associated fees;
2
Eden did not include a copy of this original revocation petition in his Appendix; therefore, the specific
allegations of probation violations are not in the record on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 3 of 7
follow the rules set forth by community corrections for his program; obtain a
G.E.D.; and abstain from consuming or possessing any intoxicating beverage or
any drug not prescribed by a physician. The probable cause affidavit attached
to the amended petition alleges that Eden had: overdosed on heroin on
February 10 and February 12, 2014 and required hospitalization; failed to
appear for a drug screen on February 12, 2014; and admitted to his probation
officer that he had overdosed on heroin twice in one week.3
[9] During a hearing on March 3, 2014, Eden was “sworn” and waived a formal
initial hearing on the amended revocation petition. 4 (App. 15). On April 10,
2014, the trial court held another hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the
trial court stated that “having found that [Eden was] in violation of the terms
and conditions of [his] probation[,]” it would therefore “entertain any
sentencing evidence [Eden] wish[ed] to present[.]” (Tr. 1). Eden then testified
that he was employed and had children that depended on him. As a result, he
requested to be placed on work release so that he could provide for his family.
[10] At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that it was the
court’s “continuing conclusion that [Eden] ha[d] a drug issue[,]” and it ordered
Eden to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the
3
Eden included the probable cause affidavit in his Appendix and makes no argument that it was not
considered by the trial court as part of his probation revocation proceeding.
4
In his Notice of Appeal, Eden did not request that this March 2014 hearing be transcribed; thus, it is not
included in the record on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 4 of 7
Department of Correction. (Tr. 5). However, the trial court recommended that
Eden be placed in a therapeutic program, “Purposeful Incarceration[,]” and it
stated that it would consider a modification of Eden’s sentence upon his
completion of the program. (App. 18). Eden now appeals.
Decision
[11] On appeal, Eden does not dispute the revocation of his probation; instead, he
argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his
previously suspended sentence because he had completed a majority of his
probation, was gainfully employed, and had a wife and children.
[12] Pursuant to INDIANA CODE § 35-38-2-3(g),
if the court finds that the person has violated a condition [of
probation] at any time before termination of the period, and the
petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the
court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:
(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
one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was
suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
[13] As our Indiana Supreme Court has noted, “[p]robation is a matter of grace left
to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 5 of 7
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “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” upon a violation
of that probation. Id. “If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and
sentences scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined
to order probation to future defendants. Id. Accordingly, we review a trial
court’s sentencing decision in a probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of
discretion. Id. A trial court has abused its discretion where its decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.[14] Here, Eden was placed on probation after being convicted for possession of a
controlled substance. Despite being placed in a drug treatment program during
probation, Eden overdosed on heroin twice in one week. As a result, the trial
court explained in its sentencing statement that “[u]ltimately it is my continuing
conclusion that you have a drug issue.” (Tr. 5). Moreover, as the State noted
during the hearing, Eden had already been shown leniency in the past when the
trial court modified his original sentence and allowed him to serve time on
probation. Yet, the trial court also noted in its sentencing order that Eden could
potentially request another modification after completing a therapeutic program
in the Department of Correction. In light of all of these factors, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Eden to serve the
remainder of his previously suspended sentence.
[15]
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 6 of 7
[16] Affirmed.
Barnes, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 41A05-1405-CR-211 | January 30, 2015 Page 7 of 7