Chester Irons v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 29, 2016
• Docket: 09A02-1512-CR-2111
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION Jul 29 2016, 9:34 am

CLERK Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals this Memorandum Decision shall not be and Tax Court

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 Mark Leeman Gregory F. Zoeller Leeman Law Offices Attorney General of Indiana Logansport, Indiana Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Chester Irons, July 29, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 09A02-1512-CR-2111 v. Appeal from the Cass Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Leo T. Burns, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 09C01-0008-CF-31

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] Chester Irons appeals the trial court's decision revoking his probation and

ordering him to serve five years of his previously-suspended sentence following

his probation violation. We affirm.

Issue [2] The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking

Irons’s probation and ordering him to serve five years of his previously-

suspended sentence.

Facts [3] On August 15, 2000, Irons was charged with four counts of Class A felony

dealing in cocaine. Irons entered a guilty plea to one count of dealing in

cocaine and the remaining counts were dismissed by agreement. Irons was

sentenced to thirty years in the Department of Correction with ten years

suspended to probation, five of the ten years of probation were to be supervised.

[4] On December 1, 2006, Irons filed a petition to modify his sentence. The trial

court granted Iron’s petition to modify his sentence and ordered that Irons be

released from the Department of Correction to serve the remainder of his

sentence with Cass County work release. Irons’s work release was transferred

to Riverside Community Corrections. Riverside Community Corrections filed

a notice of work release violation. The trial court found that Irons violated the

terms of work release and reinstated the unsuspended portion of his sentence,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 2 of 6 which was 1,402 days, and ordered Irons to begin his five-year probation term

after he completed his sentence.

[5] Four years into Irons’s probation, the State filed a violation of probation. The

trial court found that Irons had violated the terms of his probation and ordered

him to serve eight days of his previously-suspended sentence and continue on

probation.

[6] On April 25, 2014, six violations of probation were filed against Irons. The

violations alleged that Irons failed to report for substance abuse screening on

four separate occasions, failed to comply with substance abuse counseling, and

failed to make a good faith effort to pay his court fees. At a hearing for the

probation violations, Irons admitted to each violation. The trial court

subsequently revoked Irons’s probation, reinstated five years of his previously-

suspended ten-year sentence, and terminated any remaining probation. Irons

now appeals.

Analysis [7] Irons challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court after he admitted that

he violated his probation. “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. A trial

court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the

abuse of discretion standard. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 3 of 6 decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.”

Id. A defendant cannot collaterally attack the propriety of an original sentence

in the context of a probation revocation proceeding. Abernathy v. State, 852

N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). However, a defendant is entitled to

challenge the sentence a trial court decides to impose after revoking probation.

Id.

[8] Proof of a single violation of the conditions of a defendant's probation is

sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke probation. Hubbard v.

State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Upon a finding of a probation

violation, a trial court may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or

without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person's

probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original

probationary period; and (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that

was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35–38–2–3(g). “If

there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's

conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation, we will

affirm its decision to revoke probation.” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270

(Ind. 1995).

[9] Here, Irons argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his

probation and imposed five years of his previously-suspended sentence at the

Department of Correction following his probation violation. After being

sentenced to thirty years in the Department of Correction with ten years

suspended to probation for Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Irons violated his

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 4 of 6 probation twice before this current probation violation. Irons was given the

opportunity three times to show the trial court that probation was the best

option for him. Irons’s disregard for his probation on numerous occasions was

a clear indicator that probation was not the best option for him.

[10] Irons also contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it omitted

from its consideration mitigating circumstances. Irons explained to the trial

court that he had an asthmatic child who needed his support and that he had

custody of his other child. The trial court is not required to consider mitigating

circumstances when imposing a sanction for probation violation. Indiana Code

Section 35-38-1-7.1 sets forth various aggravating or mitigating factors to be

considered by the court, but with reference to the sentence being imposed for a

crime, not for a probation violation. Irons’s imposed five-year sentence is

merely a previously-suspended sentence ordered to be executed as a result of his

third probation violation.

[11] Given Irons’s repeated disregard for probation rules and that the trial court is

not required to consider mitigating circumstances when imposing a sanction for

a probation violation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking

Irons’s probation and ordering him to serve five years of his previously-

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 5 of 6 Conclusion [12] The trial court’s revocation of Irons’s probation and imposition of five years of

his previously-suspended sentence upon his probation violation was not an

abuse of discretion. We affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1512-CR-2111 | July 29, 2016 Page 6 of 6