Alfred Mattl v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 25, 2019
• Docket: 18A-CR-3033
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 25 2019, 10:10 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Matthew T. Bates Attorney General of Indiana Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Madison, Indiana Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Alfred Mattl, April 25, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-3033 v. Appeal from the Ripley Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey Sharp, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 69D01-1704-F6-42

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3033 | April 25, 2019 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] In November of 2018, Alfred Mattl admitted to violating the terms of his

probation by committing a new felony offense, for which the trial court revoked

the entirety of his previously-suspended 868-day-sentence. Mattl contends that

the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On November 28, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, Mattl pled guilty to

Level 6 felony attempted residential entry and Class A misdemeanor invasion

of privacy, for which he was sentenced to 910 days of incarceration with 868

days suspended to probation. On January 24, 2018, the State petitioned to

revoke Mattl’s probation, alleging that he had violated the terms of his

probation by committing a new offense. On November 20, 2018, Mattl

admitted to violating the terms of his probation by committing Level 5 felony

battery resulting in serious bodily injury. As a result, the trial court revoked the

entirety of Mattl’s previously-suspended sentence.

Discussion and Decision [3] Mattl contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the entirety

of his previously-suspended sentence.

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3033 | April 25, 2019 Page 2 of 4 probation if the conditions are violated. 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. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

[4] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the

entirety of Mattl’s previously-suspended sentence. Mattl violated the terms of

his probation by committing a new felony offense which alone can support a

revocation. See Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)

(concluding that a violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to

revoke probation). Moreover, the nature of the new offense committed by Mattl

was egregious. Mattl placed both of his hands around his wife’s throat,

indicated that he was going to put marks on himself to confuse the police, and

slammed his wife’s phone against the wall to prevent her from calling for help.

Finally, Mattl’s criminal history demonstrates that he is a poor candidate for

probation and that he has not used past probation stints to conform his actions

to societal norms. Mattl has been convicted of three felonies and fourteen

misdemeanors and has violated the terms of probation four times. Mattl asks us

to consider his probation revocation in light of his admission, mental health and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3033 | April 25, 2019 Page 3 of 4 substance-abuse issues, and the death of his fiancée in 2006. These things were

already considered by the trial court, which nonetheless found them insufficient

to justify giving Mattl another chance. Mattl’s argument is merely an invitation

for us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d

401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, Mattl has failed to

establish that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the entirety of his

previously-suspended sentence.

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

Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3033 | April 25, 2019 Page 4 of 4