Thomas Rayford, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Sep 16 2013, 5:36 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:
CHRISTOPHER A. CAGE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
THOMAS RAYFORD, JR., )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1212-CR-1029
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge
Cause Nos. 48D03-0609-FA-415 and 48D03-1008-FB-348
September 16, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
PYLE, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Thomas Rayford, Jr. (“Rayford”) appeals the trial court’s revocation of his home
detention and probation under cause number 48D03-0609-FA-415 (“FA-415”) and his
sentence under cause number 48D03-1008-FB-348 (“FB-348”).
We affirm.
ISSUES
1. Whether the trial court violated Rayford’s due process rights when it
revoked his home detention and probation.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s decision to
revoke Rayford’s home detention and probation.
3. Whether Rayford’s sentence is appropriate under Indiana Appellate
Rule 7(B).
FACTS
On September 18, 2006, the State charged Rayford with Class A felony dealing in
cocaine under FA-415. Rayford pled guilty on February 12, 2007, to the lesser included
offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, and the trial court sentenced him to fifteen
(15) years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”).
The trial court ordered an evaluation of Rayford’s suitability for the Madison
County Reentry Program, which he subsequently completed on June 10, 2010. Upon his
return to the supervision of the trial court, Rayford was granted a 25% reduction of his
original sentence, and, as a result, was placed on probation for 2,656 days, the balance of
his sentence.
2
On August 2, 2010, the State charged Rayford with Class B felony unlawful
possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon under FB-348. Based on this new
criminal charge, the State filed a notice of violation of probation on August 6, 2010,
seeking to revoke Rayford’s probation in FA-415. Following an evidentiary hearing on
September 8, 2010, the trial court revoked Rayford’s probation in FA-415 and ordered
the remainder of his sentence to be served in the IDOC.1
On April 5, 2012, the trial court modified Rayford’s sentence and changed his
placement from the IDOC to the Madison County Work Release Center following his
guilty plea in FB-348. The trial court also ordered that Rayford’s sentence in FB-348 be
stayed and entered a sentence of six years executed on home detention, provided he could
successfully complete one year of community corrections in FA-415. The order further
provided that if Rayford’s sentence in FA-415 was revoked for any reason, the trial court
would hold a new sentencing hearing in FB-348 and the sentence in that cause would be
open to the trial court’s discretion. The exact language of Rayford’s plea agreement is as
follows:
Sentencing shall be stayed for period not to exceed one (1) year. If the
Defendant successfully completes one (1) year of community
corrections under 48D03-0609-FA-415, the Defendant’s sentence
herein shall be six (6) years executed on community corrections. If the
Defendant’s community corrections privileges are revoked for any
reason under 0609-FA-415, sentencing shall be set within thirty (30)
days of the revocation and the sentence will be open to the Court.
(App. 53) (emphasis in original).
1
A transcript of this proceeding was not submitted with Rayford’s appeal.
3
On September 26, 2012, Rayford was arrested and charged with Class C felony
dealing in marijuana and Class D felony possession of marijuana. As a result of this
arrest, the State filed a petition to revoke Rayford’s home detention and previously
withheld sentence under FB-348. In its petition, the State alleged that Rayford had been
arrested on the aforementioned charges, had violated probation and in-home detention
rules by failing to “obey all state, federal, and municipal laws and behave well in
society,” and had violated his stayed sentence in FB-348 by failing to successfully
complete one year of community corrections in FA-415. (App. 50).
On November 26, 2012, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which
Detective Jake Brooks (“Det. Brooks”) of the Anderson Police Department testified as to
the details of Rayford’s most recent arrest. According to Det. Brooks, the department’s
drug task force orchestrated a buy-bust involving Rayford’s nephew, Donovan Sawyer
(“Sawyer), who subsequently told Det. Brooks that he had purchased marijuana from
Rayford and his girlfriend Nicole Sutherland Trout (“Trout”). Sawyer also told Detective
Brooks that Rayford and Trout had an additional half-pound of marijuana stored in their
car.
While the police were still questioning Sawyer and Rayford’s father, a vehicle
driven by Rayford with Trout as a passenger pulled up to the house and immediately
drove away. The police then performed a traffic stop of Rayford’s car and detected a
strong odor of marijuana from inside the vehicle. Trout admitted to police that the
vehicle contained marijuana, but she claimed it belonged to Rayford. A half-pound of
4
marijuana was found in Trout’s purse, and Rayford and Trout were found to have $424
and $800, respectively, on their persons. The police also found a marijuana grinder
within the vehicle.
After arresting Rayford and Trout, the police obtained and executed a search
warrant for Trout’s apartment. After being advised of her Miranda rights, Trout spoke to
police about Rayford’s involvement with the marijuana. She implicated herself as a
seller and Rayford as her supplier. She told police that the marijuana in her apartment
belonged to Rayford, and she correctly described where police could find the drug. At
the revocation hearing, Trout testified as to Rayford’s knowledge that she was selling
marijuana, and she stated that he gave her the telephone number of someone she could
call to obtain the drug.
Following the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court found by a preponderance
of the evidence that Rayford had dealt marijuana. The judge noted, among other things,
that Rayford did not behave well in society, had facilitated others in dealing marijuana,
and had visited common nuisance areas where others were using illegal substances.
Having found that Rayford had violated the conditions of his home detention and
probation in FA-415, the trial court revoked his probation in FA-415 and ordered him to
serve the remainder of his suspended sentence. The trial court also sentenced him to
twenty (20) years in FB-348, to be served consecutively to his sentence in FA-415.
Rayford now appeals the revocation of his probation in FA-415 and the appropriateness
of his sentence in FB-348.
5
DECISION
1. Due Process
Rayford first challenges whether the State afforded him due process in revoking
his probation in FA-415. Specifically, Rayford argues that statements made by the trial
court judge regarding facilitating others in dealing and visiting a common nuisance
indicate that these potential violations formed a part of the judge’s revocation decision.
The State maintains that the judge’s statements were not themselves allegations, and that
the judge was merely “noting details in the evidence presented that supported the
violations previously outlined in the petition to revoke home detention.” (State’s Br. 13).
The State further argues that even if the judge’s remarks did constitute oral allegations,
they would be harmless error in light of the other violations for which Rayford did
receive notice. We agree.
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, a defendant in a probation revocation hearing
is entitled to: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure to
the probationer of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to
present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not
allowing confrontation; (e) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (f) a written
statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973). See also Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144,
148 (Ind. 1992); Piper v. State, 770 N.E.2d 880, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
6
Due process provides that a defendant has a right to receive sufficiently detailed
notice of his claimed violations in order to prepare an adequate defense. Bovie v. State,
760 N.E.2d 1195, 1199 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618,
622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)). It is error for trial courts to revoke probation based upon
violations for which a defendant received no notice. J.H. v. State, 857 N.E.2d 429, 433
(Ind. Ct. App. 2006). However, because proof of a single violation of the conditions of
probation is sufficient to support the decision to revoke probation, a revocation based
partly on a violation for which a defendant did not receive notice results in harmless error
when that person is also found in violation regarding another offense for which he did
receive notice. Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g denied,
trans. denied.
Here, Rayford was provided with sufficient notice of his alleged violations of
probation. On September 27, 2012, the State filed a petition for termination of home
detention in FA-415 and violation of executed / suspended sentence in FB-348, in which
the State described how Rayford had been arrested the day before on charges of Class C
felony dealing marijuana and Class D felony possession of marijuana. The petition also
outlined Rayford’s violations of the conditions of his home detention program, including
(a) failing to obey all state, federal, and municipal laws, as well as failing to behave in
society, and (b) that his most recent arrest violated his stayed sentence in FB-348 as
Rayford failed to successfully complete one year of community corrections under FA-
415.
7
Although Rayford argues that the trial court judge’s aforementioned statements at
the hearing constituted oral allegations of violations for which he was not given notice,
his argument is unavailing in light of the other violations for which he was put on notice
and against which he had the opportunity to prepare a defense. See Bussberg, 827 N.E.2d
at 44 (holding that it was “harmless error” to base revocation partly on a violation for
which the defendant did not receive notice when the defendant was also found in
violation regarding another offense for which he did receive notice). The trial court
found by a preponderance of the evidence that Rayford committed the probation violation
of dealing in marijuana, a violation for which Rayford did receive notice. This violation
alone was sufficient to revoke Rayford’s probation, id., and we need not reach the
question about whether the trial court judge’s remarks constituted oral allegations of any
additional violations. We therefore find that Rayford’s due process challenge is without
merit.
2. Sufficiency of Evidence for Probation Revocation
Rayford also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s
decision to revoke his probation. Specifically, Rayford argues that the trial court erred in
admitting hearsay statements by Sawyer that he claims were substantially unreliable. He
also argues the trial court erred in crediting Detective Brooks’ hearsay statements as to
what Trout told police over Trout’s own testimony at the revocation hearing. The State
argues in response that the trial court acted within its discretion in admitting Detective
8
Brooks’ testimony, and that we should decline Rayford’s apparent invitation to reweigh
evidence. We agree.
“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 determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the
conditions are violated. Id.; see also Ind. Code. § 35-38-2-3. Indeed, violation of a
single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Richardson v. State, 890
N.E.2d 766, 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), reh’g denied. Upon determining that a probationer
has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part
of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” I.C. § 35-38-2-
3(h)(3). “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.”
Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. “If this discretion were not given to trial courts and
sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to
order probation to future defendants.” Id. As a result, we review a trial court’s decision
to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing 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. Id. Under this standard, an appellate court ‘will
consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court
without reweighing the evidence of judging the credibility of witnesses.” Braxton v.
9
State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995). “Because probation revocation hearings ‘are to
be flexible, strict rules of evidence do not apply.’” Bass v. State, 974 N.E.2d 482, 486
(Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind. 1999)). Hearsay
evidence is admissible in probation revocation proceedings so long as it is substantially
trustworthy. Bass, 974 N.E.2d at 486 (citing Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind.
2007)). Ideally, the trial court should explain on the record why the hearsay evidence is
reliable. Id.Here, the trial court admitted Detective Brook’s hearsay testimony as to Sawyer’s
statements over Rayford’s objections, deeming Sawyer’s statements reliable because it
was against his interest to admit to selling drugs with Rayford as his supplier. Further,
Sawyer’s statements were corroborated by the subsequent search of Rayford’s vehicle,
during which police found the half-pound of marijuana Sawyer said would be present.
Although Rayford cites Newby v. State, 701 N.E.2d 593, 599 for the proposition that
defendants found with drugs in their possession do not make statements against their
interest when they implicate others’ involvement in the crime, as the State correctly
points out, the present case is distinguishable from Newby in that it is a probation
revocation, and “the strict rules of evidence and hearsay do not apply.” Cox, 706 N.E.2d
at 550; Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c)(2). The trial court need only be satisfied that the
statements were reliable, and we cannot conclude here that the trial court abused its
discretion in admitting Detective Brooks’ hearsay testimony as to Sawyer’s statements.
Regarding Rayford’s argument that Trout’s statements at the hearing should be credited
10
over Detective Brooks’ hearsay testimony as to what Trout told him, we recognize the
challenge as merely an invitation to reweigh evidence, which we will not do. See
Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270. Furthermore, because at the revocation hearing, Rayford
only objected to Detective Brooks’ testimony “regarding what Donovan Sawyer may
have said” (Tr. 34), not what Trout said, he has waived that argument on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of Rayford’s
probation.
3. Appropriateness of the Twenty-Year Sentence
Finally, Rayford challenges the appropriateness of his twenty-year sentence
imposed in FB-348. A sentence authorized by statute will not be revised unless the
sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the
offender. Ind. App. Rule 7(B). The defendant bears the burden of persuading the
appellate court that his sentence is inappropriate. Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (internal citation omitted). The principal role of a Rule 7(B) review
“should be to attempt to leaven outliers, and identify some guiding principles for trial
courts and those charged with improvement of the sentencing statutes, but not to achieve
a perceived ‘correct’ result in each case.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind.
2008). Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on ‘“the culpability of the
defendant, the severity of the crime, that damage done to others, and a myriad of other
factors that come to light in a given case.’” Calvert, 930 N.E.2d at 643 (quoting
Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224).
11
When determining whether a sentence is inappropriate, we acknowledge that the
advisory sentence “is the starting point the Legislature has selected as an appropriate
sentence for the crime committed.” Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1081. The
sentencing range for a Class B felony is between six (6) and twenty (20) years, with the
advisory sentence being ten (10) years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5. For Rayford’s Class B felony
unlawful possession of a firearm, the trial court imposed a twenty-year sentence.
As the State correctly points out, while Rayford argues that his sentence is
inappropriate in light of his character, he makes no argument as to how the nature of his
offense justifies revision of his sentence. (See Rayford’s Br. 17-19). By neglecting to do
so, Rayford has failed to meet his burden under Appellate Rule 7(B) and waives this issue
for appellate review. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (waiver based on failure to present a
cogent argument). See also Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. Ct. App 2008)
(explaining that “revision of a sentence under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) requires the
appellant to demonstrate that his sentence is inappropriate in light of both the nature of
his offense and his character” and holding that the appellant had waived appellate review
of Rule 7(B) argument by failing to provide a cogent argument as required under
Appellate Rule 46(a)(8)(a)) (emphasis in original). We will nevertheless address the
merits of the arguments Rayford did include.
With regard to his character, Rayford admits that he has a “lengthy and serious
history.” (Rayford’s Br. 17). He argues, however, that because he cannot be considered
“the worst of the worst offenders,” and because he was within five days of completing his
12
community corrections placement, the minimum, rather than the maximum sentence,
would be the appropriate result. We disagree. Rayford’s extensive criminal history
includes two prior felony convictions for Class B felony dealing in in cocaine, Class D
felony intimidation, and misdemeanor possession of a handgun. We do not find it
compelling that Rayford was within five days of completing a community corrections
placement in FA-415 which would have reduced his sentence in FB-345 to the minimum.
His inability to successfully complete a year of probation with such high-stakes
consequences only indicates a persistent disdain for legal authority, despite being
afforded opportunities for rehabilitation. We also find unavailing his argument that he is
not “the worst of the worst offenders.” (Rayford’s Br. 17). See Jenkins v. State, 909
N.E.2d 1080, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (finding a maximum sentence appropriate even if
a defendant is “far from the ‘worst of the worst’” where a “moderate record of criminal
convictions and other contacts with the criminal justice system have not convinced [him]
to reform himself.”). Accordingly, we find that Rayford has not persuaded us that his
sentence is inappropriate in light of his character.
As stated above, Rayford’s brief is silent on the issue of whether the nature of his
offense justifies revision of his sentence. Regardless, we find that the nature of his
offense, Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,
supports his twenty-year sentence. The advisory sentence range for a Class B felony is
between six and twenty years, with an advisory sentence of ten years, and Rayford
concedes that a sentence greater than the advisory is justified. Indeed, nothing about the
13
nature of the offense justifies a reduction in sentence. According to the probable cause
affidavit, Rayford was arrested while on probation in FA-415, during the execution of a
search warrant by police in a club known for criminal gang and drug activity. Rayford
did not comply with police officer’s requests that he keep his left hand visible and instead
told police, “Fuck you.” (Conf. App. 56.) Police subsequently found a revolver in
Rayford’s left front pocket during a pat-down. Accordingly, we find that the twenty-year
sentence is justified in light of the nature of Rayford’s offense.
Rayford has not persuaded us that his sentence is inappropriate. We therefore
affirm the trial court’s sentence.
Affirmed.
BARNES, J. and CRONE, J., concur.
14