Ravonte L. Love v. State of Indiana

FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
Feb 08 2012, 10:09 am
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
L. ROSS ROWLAND GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Public Defender’s Office Attorney General of Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RAVONTE L. LOVE, )
)
Appellant-Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) No. 18A02-1106-CR-575
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE DELAWARE CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Richard A. Dailey, Judge
Cause Nos. 18C02-0911-FB-30 and 18C02-1007-FD-89
February 8, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Ravonte L. Love appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the remainder of his
previously suspended sentence following the revocation of his home detention. Love
raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion
when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. We
affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In September of 2010 Love pleaded guilty to robbery, as a Class B felony, and
escape, as a Class D felony, under two different cause numbers. The trial court sentenced
Love to an aggregate term of eight years suspended to home detention. In November, the
State filed a motion to revoke Love’s home detention, alleging that Love had twice tested
positive for marijuana and that he had failed to pay more than $1000 in home detention
fees. On May 19, 2011, Love admitted that he had violated the conditions of his home
detention as alleged. The court revoked his home detention and ordered him to serve the
remainder of his sentence in jail. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Love challenges the trial court’s order that he serve the remainder of his sentence
following the revocation of his home detention.1 If the court finds a violation of a
condition of home detention, it may modify conditions of probation, extend probation for
up to one year, or “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at
the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). We review the trial court’s
1
Portions of Love’s brief suggest that he is also appealing the court’s revocation of his home
detention. Because Love admitted to the State’s alleged violations, and Love does not suggest on appeal
that his admissions were somehow erroneous, we do not consider that issue.
2
sanction for an abuse of discretion. See Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458, 464 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2009). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.The totality of Love’s argument is as follows:
In the instant case, there was no rationale as to why the Defendant received
a revocation and an eight (8) year sentence to prison. The Judge did
comment that the use of marijuana “was extremely egregious.” (Transcript
at 46). However, the Court did not comment on the fact that the Defendant
had a child, was young, his family would suffer without him, he was
seeking help with his drug problem[,] and that he could work with his step-
father. The Judge never mentioned any of these mitigating circumstances.
Appellant’s Br. a 7-8.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Love to serve the
remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Less than two weeks after the trial court
imposed Love’s suspended sentence, Love failed a drug test. He failed another drug test
a week after the first failed test. We agree with the State that “[t]he two violations within
days of sentencing prove that [Love] was either unwilling or unable to conform his
behavior to the terms and conditions of home detention . . . .” Appellee’s Br. at 7.
Further, the trial court was under no obligation to explain why it did not find Love’s
proposed mitigators persuasive before revoking his home detention, and Love’s argument
on appeal does not persuade this court that his mitigators were worthy of credit. See,
e.g., Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 43 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (holding that the trial
court is not required to explain the particular punishment for a probation violation), trans.
denied. The revocation of home detention is a civil question, not a criminal one. 2 As
2
For this reason, Love’s references to the standard of review discussed in Anglemyer v. State,
868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), are misplaced. We further note that Love cites Anglemyer by its docket
3
such, we affirm the trial court’s order for Love to serve the remainder of his previously
suspended sentence.
Affirmed.
ROBB, C.J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
number rather than to the regional reporter, contrary to the requirements of our appellate rules. See Ind.
Appellate Rule 22(A).
4