Brock J. Mathews v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 20 2017, 9:21 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Kay A. Beehler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Terre Haute, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Laura R. Anderson
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Brock J. Mathews, June 20, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1701-CR-69
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1507-F5-1561
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 1 of 6
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Brock J. Mathews (Mathews), appeals the trial court’s
imposition of his previously suspended sentence following a revocation of his
probation.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Mathews raises one issue for our review, which we restate as: Whether the trial
court abused its discretion by ordering Mathews to serve his previously
suspended sentence following a revocation of his probation.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On July 8, 2015, the State filed an Information charging Mathews with carrying
a handgun without a license, a Level 5 felony; theft of a firearm, a Level 6
felony; resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony; and carrying a handgun
without a license, a Class A misdemeanor. On September 2, 2015, Mathews
was evaluated and accepted for the Jail Linkage program, which he completed
on October 21, 2015. On November 25, 2015, Mathews commenced pre-trial
work release.
[5] On December 16, 2015, Mathews pled guilty to Level 6 felony carrying a
handgun without a license, in exchange for a five-year sentence with three years
to be served on work release and two years suspended to probation. On
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 2 of 6
January 19, 2016, the trial court imposed the sentence as agreed upon in the
plea agreement.
[6] On March 14, 2016, the State filed a petition to revoke direct placement in the
work release program and/or to revoke probation alleging that Mathews went
to work on March 3, 2016, at 3:00 a.m. and was to return at 3:00 p.m.
However, he failed to return to his placement. On December 14, 2016, the trial
court conducted a hearing on the State’s petition. During the hearing, Mathews
admitted to having violated his direct placement and probation. He testified
that he panicked and left his placement after self-medicating with
methamphetamine to control the panic attacks he suffered after his step-mother
had been murdered. In addition to this violation, Mathews had also committed
two new offenses: resisting law enforcement and battery while on direct
placement. After receiving testimony, the trial court took the matter under
advisement, indicating that it wanted to consult with the addictions counselor
of the Jail Linkage Program to see if the program would serve any further
purpose given Mathews had already completed it.
[7] On December 21, 2016, the trial court ordered Mathews to serve the previously
suspended term in the Department of Correction (DOC). Specifically, the trial
court ruled:
I’m going to order you into the DOC for the balance of your
sentence. I am going to order you into CLIFF and I am going to
indicate that this is a mental health placement so that you can
receive both. Once you successfully complete, I will entertain a
motion to modify you out, either to probation, community
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 3 of 6
corrections, some kind of modification out, so give you the last
best chance to get a handle on this.
(Transcript Vol. IV, p. 8).
[8] Mathews now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[9] “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 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. For purposes of our review, the
revocation of a community corrections placement is treated the same as the
revocation of probation. Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 4 of 6
[10] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Sparks v. State, 983 N.E.2d 221, 224
(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). First, the court must make a factual determination that a
violation of a condition occurred. Id. Second, if a violation is found, the trial
court must determine whether the violation warrants revocation of the
probation. Id. If the probationer admits to violating probation, like here, the
court only needs to determine whether the violation warrants revocation;
however, the probationer must be given an opportunity to provide mitigating
evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation. Id. If the
trial court’s finding of a violation is supported by substantial evidence of
probative value, then we will affirm the revocation of probation. Pierce v. State,
44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A single violation of probation is
sufficient to permit the trial court to revoke probation. Id.
[11] Mathews now contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked
his work release placement and imposed his entire previously suspended
sentence after he admitted to the probation violation. Specifically, Mathews
maintains that the trial court should have placed him in a treatment program
for addiction and trauma-induced anxiety disorders.
[12] While Mathews argues for the placement of a community corrections program
to receive treatment for his addictions, the trial court did consider his request
and placed him in the purposeful incarceration CLIFF program as a mental
health placement. Although Mathews admitted to only one violation of failing
to return to his work release program, he had also committed two new offenses,
i.e., resisting law enforcement and battery. At the time the trial court ordered
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 5 of 6
Mathews to serve the previously suspended sentence, Mathews had only 788
days remaining on his sentence. Additionally, the trial court agreed on the
record that once Mathews successfully completed the CLIFF program, it would
modify him out of DOC to give him “the last best chance” to address his issues.
(Tr. Vol. IV, p. 8).
[13] Accordingly, after arguments and evidence had been presented, the trial court
ordered what it considered would be the appropriate sanction given the
circumstances. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it
ordered Mathews to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.
CONCLUSION
[14] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by ordering Mathews to serve his previously suspended sentence
following the revocation of his probation.
[15] Affirmed.
[16] Najam, J. and Bradford, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1701-CR-69 | June 20, 2017 Page 6 of 6