Evan D. Wilford v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 11, 2020
• Docket: 20A-CR-1305
• 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 Dec 11 2020, 8:15 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral 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 Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Catherine Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Evan D. Wilford, December 11, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1305 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D01-1402-FB-350

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Evan D. Wilford appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of his

previously suspended sentence following the court’s revocation of his

probation. Wilford presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the

trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his

previously suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In 2014, Wilford pleaded guilty to criminal confinement, as a Class C felony.

The court accepted Wilford’s plea agreement and ordered him to serve two

years on in-home detention and suspended the remaining six years to formal

probation.

[3] In November of 2015, the State filed a notice of placement violation while

Wilford was on in-home detention. The State alleged that Wilford had failed

multiple drug screens. Wilford admitted to the violations, and the court

revoked his in-home placement.

[4] Wilford began serving his term of formal probation in May of 2016. In 2018

and 2019, the State charged Wilford with multiple new offenses over at least

nine different cause numbers. The State then filed a notice of probation

violation in this cause, which notice the State subsequently amended to include

allegations that Wilford had also tested positive for controlled substances.

[5] In February of 2020, Wilford admitted to having committed numerous new

offenses in violation of his probation. In exchange for his admission, the State

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 2 of 4 recommended that Wilford be returned to probation “with the additional

condition he successfully complete residential treatment at Hamilton Center—

Oak Street.” Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 159. The trial court accepted the

State’s recommendation.

[6] About one week after being admitted into the Hamilton Center, Wilford was

discharged for noncompliance. In particular, he had violated the Hamilton

Center’s rules on phone usage, and he had argued with another resident. And,

when the Hamilton Center evaluated him for readmission after that discharge,

Wilford “den[ied] a need for treatment.” Id. at 169. The court revoked

Wilford’s placement on probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his

previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. This

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [7] Wilford appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of his previously

suspended sentence. As our Supreme Court has stated:

“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) (explaining that: “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.”). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 3 of 4 Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014).

[8] Wilford asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to

serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. In particular, Wilford

asserts that his noncompliance with the Hamilton Center’s rules were minor

transgressions. He also asserts, relying on his own testimony to the trial court,

that he was doing well with the conditions of his probation until “restrictions

began as a result of COVID-19,” which caused Wilford to “struggle[] with

managing his ADHD, los[e] his focus, and beg[i]n making poor decisions . . . .”

Appellant’s Br. at 7.

[9] Wilford’s arguments on appeal are, at best, a request for this court to reweigh

the evidence on appeal, which we cannot do. The evidence before the trial

court demonstrates that Wilford had numerous opportunities to bring himself

into compliance with the conditions of his probation. Instead, he committed

multiple new offenses and failed a last-chance opportunity to comply with the

Hamilton Center’s requirements. We cannot say that the trial court abused its

discretion when it ordered Wilford to serve the balance of his previously

suspended sentence in the Department of Correction, and we therefore affirm

the trial court’s judgment.

[10] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1305 | December 11, 2020 Page 4 of 4