Jimmy Scott Huntington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 27, 2015
• Docket: 15A01-1412-CR-544
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jul 27 2015, 5:28 am Memorandum Decision shall not be 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

Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jimmy Scott Huntington, July 27, 2015

Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 15A01-1412-CR-00544 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff Case No. 15D02-1105-FD-202

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary [1] Jimmy Scott Huntington appeals the trial court’s judgment that he serve his

previously suspended three-year sentence for violating his probation. The

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 5 dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its

discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In the summer of 2011, Huntington was charged with and pled guilty to class D

felony failure to comply with the sex and violent offender registration

requirements. He was sentenced to three years suspended to supervised

probation to be served consecutive to a probation violation sentence imposed in

another case. One of the probation terms was that Huntington would not

commit a criminal act.

[3] In September 2014, the Dearborn County Probation Department alleged that

Huntington violated the terms of his probation by committing the crime of

operating a vehicle while intoxicated. At the dispositional hearing, Huntington

admitted to the violation. The trial court found that Huntington violated his

probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended three-year

sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [4] Huntington argues that revoking his entire three-year sentence was an abuse of

discretion. Specifically, he argues that revoking just one year of his sentence

would adequately punish him for his violation and would take into account his

willingness to reform. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court

discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Runyon v.

State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 618 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 5 188 (Ind. 2007)). “Revocation of an individual’s probation deprives the

individual ‘not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only

of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole

restrictions.’” Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)

(quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972)). “Probation is a criminal

sanction whereby a defendant specifically agrees to accept conditions upon his

behavior in lieu of imprisonment.” Hurd v. State, 9 N.E.3d 720, 726 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2014). “These restrictions are designed to ensure that the probation serves

as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the public is not harmed by a

probationer living within the community.” Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244,

1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, (2003).

[5] A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the alleged violation need

be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Carpenter v. State, 999

N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Violation of a single condition of

probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “The decision to revoke probation is within the sole

discretion of the trial court.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008).

[6] “A trial court’s probation decision is subject to appellate review for abuse of

discretion ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts

and circumstances.”’ Runyon, 939 N.E.2d at 618 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at

188. Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, a

court may either continue him on probation, with or without enlarging the

conditions, extend his probation for not more than one year beyond the original

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 5 probationary period, or order execution of the initial sentence that was

suspended. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(j). The imposition of an entire suspended

sentence is within the trial court’s discretion. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d

952, 957-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

[7] Huntington admitted that he committed the offense of operating a vehicle while

intoxicated in direct violation of the terms of his probation. This admission

alone would support the imposition of his suspended sentence. Moreover,

Huntington’s history shows that he is a poor candidate for continuing

probation. He was placed on probation several times in the past and had

multiple violations. In one case, Huntington received a fifteen-year sentence

with ten years suspended. Because of his multiple probation violations,

Huntington spent the entire suspended portion of his sentence incarcerated in

the Department of Correction. 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 Huntington,

the very purpose of probation is defeated.

[8] Further, Huntington reported that he consumed alcohol daily until he passed

out, but claimed that it was not apparent that he had an alcohol abuse problem

until his arrest for operating while intoxicated. Even if it were plausible that

Huntington did not recognize drinking to unconsciousness was a problem until

his arrest, it does not change the fact that he was drinking every day in direct

violation of his probation. Huntington has been afforded numerous

opportunities to pay his debts to society via probation in lieu of imprisonment.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 5 Through his own actions, he has squandered those opportunities and earned the

resulting sentence revocations.

[9] The foregoing facts demonstrate Huntington’s disregard for court orders and

the probation system. The trial court had ample basis for its decision to order

that Huntington serve his entire suspended sentence and did not abuse its

discretion.

[10] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 5