Aaron M. Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 11, 2015
• Docket: 03A01-1410-CR-439
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 11 2015, 9:55 am 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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Gregory F. Zoeller Laura Raiman Attorney General of Indiana Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Richard C. Webster Madison, Indiana Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Aaron M. Taylor, March 11, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 03A01-1410-CR-439 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court. The Honorable Stephen R. State of Indiana, Heimann, Judge. Appellee-Plaintiff Cause Nos. 03C01-1306-FB-3400 03C01-1306-FB-3401

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 5 [1] Aaron Taylor appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues

that the trial court erred when it ordered the remainder of his suspended

sentence to be executed. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] On November 2, 2009, Taylor pleaded guilty to class B felony burglary and

receiving stolen property.1 On December 1, 2009, the trial court sentenced

Taylor to fifteen years with eight years suspended for the burglary conviction

and imposed a two-and-one-half-year suspended sentence for the receiving

stolen property conviction. The two sentences were to be served consecutively.

[3] On or about March 30, 2013, Taylor was released from prison. He was

admitted to the Bartholomew County Community Corrections Program to

serve probation. On June 17, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke

probation, alleging that Taylor had committed class D felony domestic battery

and class A misdemeanor domestic battery. On October 22, 2013, the State

filed an amended petition to revoke probation because Taylor had tested

positive for Suboxone, a controlled substance, and had failed to pay his court

ordered costs and fees.

[4] On September 15, 2014, the trial court held a hearing. At the hearing, Taylor

admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by using Suboxone and

1 Taylor was charged with burglary under cause number 03C01-1306-FB-3400. He was charged with receiving stolen property under cause number 03C01-1306-FB-3401.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5 failing to complete substance abuse treatment courses. He testified that he was

sorry for his behavior, that his use of Suboxone had been a relapse into

addiction, and that he knew that he needed substance abuse treatment. In

addition, Taylor’s probation officer testified that Taylor had “done okay on

probation,” and indicated that she did not recommend placing Taylor back in

prison. Tr. p. 6.

[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took note of Taylor’s drug

problem. The trial court ordered Taylor to serve the remaining eight years of

his sentence at the Department of Correction (DOC), but also recommended

that Taylor be placed in a therapeutic community while serving his time at the

DOC. The trial court stated that it would “maintain jurisdiction over this case

to potentially modify [Taylor’s] sentence . . . to modify [Taylor] back out of the

Department of Corrections [sic] upon [Taylor’s] successful completion of [a]

therapeutic community.” Id. at 25. Taylor now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Taylor argues that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation and

executed the remainder of his suspended sentence. The decision to revoke

probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court. Reyes v. State, 868

N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for an abuse

of discretion. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider

only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the

evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5 substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that

a defendant violated the terms of his probation, this Court will affirm the trial

court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at 639-40.

[7] Taylor argues that the trial court erred in imposing the “most extreme sanction

available.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. He admits that he has suffered from serious

drug abuse and that he had relapsed several times. However, he argues that he

has persevered and has still managed to better himself by obtaining his GED

and maintaining regular employment. In support of his argument, he points to

the testimony of his probation officer, who did not recommend that he be

returned to the DOC. Tr. p. 8. He also points out that the attorney for the

State stated that “it appears [Taylor’s] probation officer is willing to work with

him and give him the opportunity to attempt to rehabilitate himself outside of a

penal facility perhaps one last time.” Id. p. 24. Therefore, Taylor argues that

all parties agreed that he should not be returned to the DOC and contends that

the trial court should have placed him on work release rather than executing the

remainder of his sentence.

[8] However, evidence at the probation hearing showed that Taylor had been

unsuccessful in his attempts to rehabilitate himself. Taylor’s own testimony

revealed that he had relapsed several times. Id. at 15, 17. He admitted that he

had violated the terms of his probation and that he had used Suboxone. Id. at

6. In addition, while the State did recognize that Taylor’s probation officer was

willing to work with him, she also told the trial court that Taylor was “near the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 4 of 5 point that perhaps he’s in need of treatment that can best be provided at a penal

facility.” Tr. p. 24.

[9] Furthermore, the trial court was clearly mindful of Taylor’s substance abuse

problem. After looking at the evidence, including Taylor’s admission that he

had failed to complete a substance abuse program and had relapsed, the trial

court recommended that he be placed in a therapeutic community at the DOC.

Id. at 25. In addition, the trial court maintained jurisdiction of the case so that

it might monitor Taylor’s progress in a therapeutic community and consider

modification in the future. Id.

[10] As noted above, if we find there is substantial evidence of probative value to

support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of his

probation, we will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Woods,

892 N.E.2d at 639-40. Here, in light of the evidence and Taylor’s concession

that he did violate his probation, we find that there was substantial evidence of

probative value to support the trial court’s determination that Taylor violated

his probation.

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5