Craylon D. Bell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 23, 2016
• Docket: 84A04-1511-CR-1851
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be May 23 2016, 8:51 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General Brooklyn, Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Graylon D. Bell, May 23, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 84A04-1511-CR-1851 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D01-1308-FC-2405

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] The trial court revoked Graylon D. Bell’s probation and ordered him to serve

his entire suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Bell

now appeals contending that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering

him to serve “the maximum sentence.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Given Bell’s

extensive criminal history and numerous probation violations, we conclude that

the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Bell to serve his entire

suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his probation merely four months

after being released from the DOC. We therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In August 2013, the State charged Bell with Class C felony intimidation and

with being a habitual offender. Bell and the State entered into a plea

agreement. Pursuant to that agreement, Bell pled guilty to intimidation and

admitted being a habitual offender. The trial court, in accordance with the plea

agreement, sentenced Bell to an aggregate term of ten years, with four years

executed at the DOC, six years suspended, and a minimum of two years on

probation. Appellant’s App. p. 168.

[3] Bell was released from the DOC in April 2015 and signed his probation

conditions in June 2015. Then, in August 2015, the probation department filed

a notice of probation violation. The notice alleged that Bell violated his

probation for (1) committing a new offense (domestic battery) on August 19; (2)

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016 Page 2 of 5 failing to report a change of address within forty-eight hours; and (3) missing a

probation appointment on August 12. Following a hearing, the trial court

found that Bell violated his probation for all three reasons. Id. at 189. The trial

court then revoked Bell’s probation and ordered him to serve “the remainder of

his suspended sentence of six (6) years” in the DOC. Id. at 192.

[4] Bell now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Bell contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve

his entire suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his probation. Once a

trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than

incarceration, “the judge should have considerable leeway in how to proceed.”

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187 (Ind. 2007). 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. Id. Accordingly, a trial court’s

sentencing decision for a probation violation is reviewable under the abuse-of-

discretion standard. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[6] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine

that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State,

892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial

court must decide whether the violation warrants revocation of probation. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016 Page 3 of 5 If the trial court finds that the probationer violated a condition of probation at

any time before the probationary period ended, then the 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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(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(h).

[7] On appeal, Bell does not contest that he violated the terms of his probation;

instead, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to

serve “the maximum sentence of 6 years.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. He claims that

“a shorter period of incarceration followed by placement in a community

corrections program would have been a more appropriate disposition in this

case.” Id. at 7-8.

[8] As Bell concedes, he has “a lengthy criminal history.” Id. at 7. This history,

which comprises nine pages of his PSI, includes convictions for, among other

things, disorderly conduct, criminal conversion, child molesting, criminal

trespass, battery, battery by means of a deadly weapon, theft, rape, invasion of

privacy, stalking, operating a vehicle as an HTV, failure to return to lawful

detention, and residential entry. In addition, also as Bell concedes, he has

violated probation numerous times. Given Bell’s extensive criminal history and

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016 Page 4 of 5 failed probations, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it ordered

Bell to serve his entire suspended sentence in the DOC for violating his

probation, again, by committing yet another crime merely four months after

being released from the DOC.

[9] Affirmed.

Barnes, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1511-CR-1851| May 23, 2016 Page 5 of 5