Douglas Blankenship v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 11, 2016
• Docket: 15A01-1508-CR-1158
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Mar 11 2016, 6:52 am 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 Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Douglas Blankenship, March 11, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 15A01-1508-CR-1158 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan N. Appellee-Plaintiff Cleary, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D01-1304-FD-226

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1508-CR-1158 | March 11, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Douglas Blankenship appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. The

sole issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its

discretion when it revoked Blankenship’s probation and ordered him to serve

the remainder of his entire suspended sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion,

we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] The State charged Blankenship with one count of class D felony theft and one

count of class D felony receiving stolen property. In October 2013,

Blankenship pled guilty to the theft charge in exchange for dismissal of the

receiving stolen property charge. The trial court sentenced Blankenship to 1095

days in prison, with 915 days suspended to probation.

[3] On October 8, 2014, the State filed an amended request for a probation

violation hearing alleging that Blankenship violated his probation by failing two

drug screens. During a revocation hearing held on October 15, 2014,

Blankenship admitted to the probation violation and the trial court imposed 180

days of his previously suspended sentence. Then, on March 4, 2015, the State

filed a second request for a probation violation hearing alleging that

Blankenship had failed another drug screen and also was terminated from his

court-ordered drug treatment program due to his failure to attend sessions.

Blankenship admitted to the probation violations, and the trial court imposed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1508-CR-1158 | March 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 the remainder (735 days) of his previously suspended sentence. This appeal

ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] “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). It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the conditions of

probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. Heaton v.

State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). We review a trial court’s decision to

revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323, 326

(Ind. Ct. App. 2012). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the

court. Id. We neither reweigh evidence nor reassess witness credibility, and we

consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court’s judgment. Id.

[5] A trial court’s subsequent sentencing decisions following a revocation of

probation are also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Sparks v. State, 983

N.E.2d 221, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Once the court has concluded that

probation has been violated, it may continue the defendant on probation,

extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original

period, or order all or part of the previously suspended sentence to be executed.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). Where a trial court has exercised its grace in

granting a defendant probation rather than incarceration, it has considerable

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1508-CR-1158 | March 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 leeway in deciding how to proceed when the defendant then violates the

conditions of his probation. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

[6] Blankenship contends that the imposition of his entire suspended sentence was

unwarranted because he “presented himself to the court as a drug addict eager

to treat his problem.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. Blankenship directs us to his self-

serving testimony during the second revocation hearing in which he claims that

he is ready, able, and willing to participate in treatment to combat his

addiction. However, Blankenship’s behavior belies his claim, and it is the trial

court’s prerogative, not ours, to assess his credibility on this issue. This was

Blankenship’s second probation violation in this cause, and the trial court had

ample basis for determining that imposition of the entire suspended sentence

was proper since its prior attempt at a lesser sanction had proven wholly

unsuccessful. The object of probationary terms and conditions is to ensure that

probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation. If a probationer

repeatedly violates probation terms, as is the case with Blankenship, the very

purpose of probation is defeated. Under the circumstances, we cannot say that

the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Blankenship’s probation and

ordering him to serve his entire suspended sentence.

[7] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1508-CR-1158 | March 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4