Dacota Hughes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 20, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2285
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 20 2020, 10:10 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dacota Hughes, April 20, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2285 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1609-F3-2644

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Dacota Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals an order of the trial court that revoked his

probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended

sentence. He presents the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion

when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] Hughes pled guilty to attempted robbery as a Level 5 felony. He was sentenced

to six years, with three of those years executed and three suspended to

probation. As ordered, on January 4, 2019, Hughes was released and placed on

probation. He attended his first probation meeting but thereafter failed to

appear. Based upon this violation, the State filed a petition to revoke.

[3] The trial court conducted a hearing on this petition and found Hughes in

violation and revoked his probation. The court ordered Hughes to serve the

suspended portion of his sentence. Hughes now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Probation may be revoked where: (1) the person violated a condition of the

probation during the probationary period; and (2) the petition to revoke

probation was filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of one

year after termination of probation or forty-five days after the state receives

notification. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). Hughes does not challenge the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 2 of 4 timing of the State’s petition to revoke; rather, he contends that the trial court

abused its discretion by ordering that he serve the balance of his suspended

sentence.

[5] Where the court finds a person has violated a condition of probation, 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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order the

execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial

sentencing. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h).1 Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in

adjudicating a probation violation. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.

2007). We review that decision only for an abuse of discretion, which occurs

when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and

circumstances. Id. It is well within the trial court’s discretion to determine the

conditions of probation and revoke it if the conditions are violated. Id. When a

trial court exercises its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration,

the judge has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id.

[6] Hughes violated a condition of his probation soon after it began by failing to

attend his meetings with the probation officer. Moreover, Hughes has a history

of violating probation. In 2010, Hughes was convicted of intimidation and

criminal mischief and was sentenced to one and one-half years on probation.

1 Unlike a juvenile justice matter, there is no requirement upon the judge to consider the least restrictive placement.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 3 of 4 In that case, Hughes violated his probation, served sixty-four days in jail, and

was then placed back on probation, which he later violated a second time. In

his adult life, Hughes has been placed on probation five separate times and has

incurred numerous violations. Ultimately, in the bulk of these placements,

Hughes completed his sentence without satisfactorily completing the terms of

his probation.

[7] Hughes has a history of probation violations. He has repeatedly demonstrated

his contempt for the grace bestowed upon him by the court. Here, he has failed

once again to successfully comply with the terms of his probation. We cannot

say that the trial court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the

facts and circumstances. To the contrary, the trial court acted well within its

discretion to order Hughes to serve the remainder of his previously suspended

[8] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 4 of 4