Eric Haralson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 21, 2016
• Docket: 29A05-1604-CR-874
• 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 Sep 21 2016, 8:40 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller Hansen Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Noblesville, Indiana Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric Haralson, September 21, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 29A05-1604-CR-874 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29C01-1009-FB-60

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Eric Haralson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing

him to three years of his previously suspended sentence for violating his

probation (for a second time) in this case. Finding no abuse of discretion, we

affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In July 2011, Haralson pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in a Schedule II

controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a

license. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years, with six years executed

and six years suspended. The court ordered the last year of Haralson’s executed

sentence to be served on work release, followed by two years of probation.

[3] Haralson finished work release in October 2013 and started serving his two-year

probation term. In May 2014, the probation department filed a notice alleging

that Haralson violated his probation by committing a new offense, Class A

misdemeanor operating a vehicle without ever having received a license.

Haralson admitted violating his probation, and the trial court sentenced him to

forty days of his previously suspended sentence.

[4] Then, in October 2015, the probation department filed a second notice alleging

that Haralson violated his probation by being dishonest with his probation

officer about his drug and alcohol use, testing positive on two occasions for

illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine), and consuming

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 5 alcohol in violation of his CARE evaluation. A hearing was held, and

Haralson admitted violating his probation. Tr. p. 7-9. Haralson asked the trial

court to place him on community corrections. Haralson explained that

although he tested negative for drugs for a period of about eighteen months, he

“started indulging in drugs again” when he “ran into some old friends that [he

had] stopped hanging out with when [he] got out of prison.” Id. at 18. The trial

court revoked Haralson’s probation and sentenced him to three years of his

previously suspended sentence, to be served in prison. The trial court reasoned:

The Court placed [Haralson] on probation once he completed the executed sentence and he violated probation previously [in this case] by committing a new crime, to which he only received a 40 day jail sentence, 40 days of his previously suspended sentence were executed. He was then placed back on probation. This is, even though according to the Pre-Sentence Investigation the Court received when the Defendant was sentenced that nearly every single time he has ever been convicted before he has violated his probation with at least one prior time, two prior times where his probation was revoked. At the last sentencing hearing I was told about the Defendant’s child. I considered the fact that he had a child the last time he was here. The Court is not going to consider again that he has a child. The Defendant knew he had a child when he was smoking and using drugs, and he smoked and used them anyway. The hearing today essentially tries to suggest that the Defendant has relapsed due to a drug problem. But what I heard today is that the Defendant started hanging around friends. This was not about a relapse, this was about hanging around the wrong people and then going and doing the things that they were doing with them. It was not about a need to have drugs and then finding them, it was about hanging out with the wrong people. . . . I do not find Hamilton County Community Corrections to be an appropriate sentence here. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 5 Id. at 26-27.

[5] Haralson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [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.

If the trial court finds that the probationer violated a condition of probation, the

court has several options:

(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). A trial court’s sentencing decision for violating

probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d

184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[7] Haralson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to

three years of his previously suspended sentence for violating his probation

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 5 because he is “an addicted person suffering from relapse” and is “a father

seeking an opportunity to support his son.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. He claims

the trial court should have sentenced him to community corrections instead.

[8] The trial court, however, specifically declined to place Haralson in community

corrections. It noted that Haralson had already violated probation once in this

case and that he had violated probation in other cases as well. As for

Haralson’s child, the trial court explained that it considered Haralson’s child

when it sentenced him to only forty days for his first probation violation, yet

Haralson violated his probation a second time. Finally, as for Haralson’s claim

that he only relapsed because of addiction, the trial court pointed to Haralson’s

own testimony that despite testing negative for drugs for a substantial period of

time, he began “indulging” in drugs again after he started hanging out with the

wrong people, not because of addiction. Accordingly, we find that the trial

court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Haralson to three years of his

previously suspended sentence for violating his probation a second time in this

case.

[9] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 5