Justin Hoskins v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 21, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-7
• 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 Jun 21 2019, 7:45 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 Steven E. Ripstra Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Ripstra Law Office Attorney General of Indiana Jasper, Indiana Ian McLean Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Justin Hoskins, June 21, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-7 v. Appeal from the Martin Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lynne E. Ellis, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 51C01-1708-F6-182

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 1 of 4 [1] Justin Hoskins appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation, arguing

that the trial court erred by ordering that he serve a portion of his previously

suspended sentence in jail and consecutive to another sentence. Finding no

error, we affirm.

[2] On January 25, 2018, Hoskins pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of

methamphetamine in exchange for a sentence of 547 days, with 505 days

suspended and 16 months on probation. His conditional release on probation

began that same day.

[3] Less than four months later, on April 12, 2018, Hoskins tested positive for

methamphetamine and alcohol use. On June 11, 2018, he committed Class C

misdemeanor operating while intoxicated in Orange County. On June 13,

2018, he tested positive for methamphetamine. On June 24, 2018, he failed to

appear for a probation appointment. On August 10, 2018, the State filed a

petition to revoke Hoskins’s probation.

[4] On August 15, 2018, Hoskins was charged with Class A misdemeanor driving

while suspended in Lawrence County.1 He later failed to appear for a hearing

in that case and a warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was still

outstanding when, on September 7, 2018, Hoskins was arrested on the warrant

issued for the probation revocation petition in this case. On August 22, 2018,

he received a suspended sentence in the Orange County case; a petition to

1 That charge was still pending at the time of the probation revocation hearing in this case.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 2 of 4 revoke probation in that case was pending during the hearing on Hoskins’s

probation in this case.

[5] At an October 11, 2018, hearing, Hoskins admitted to the allegations of the

petition to revoke his probation. An evidentiary hearing took place regarding

the sanction to be imposed by the trial court for the allegations. After hearing

evidence and argument, the trial court revoked his previously suspended

sentence, ordering him to remain in jail until January 15, 2019, after which he

would be eligible to be released to community corrections. His sentence was to

be served consecutively to his sentences in the operating while intoxicated and

driving while suspended cases. Hoskins now appeals.

[6] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion rather than a right to

which a defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

The trial court determines the conditions of probation, and if the conditions are

violated, the trial court may revoke probation. Id. The judge has “considerable

leeway in deciding how to proceed,” and we will reverse only if the decision is

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[7] Hoskins began regularly violating the terms of his probation in April 2018, and

his violations continued unabated until he was finally arrested. His explanation

for his actions was, essentially, to blame Orange County court personnel and

the fact that he was “freaking out” about his girlfriend’s pregnancy. Tr. Vol. II

p. 40. He told the trial court that he was ready to turn his life around and make

better choices, given the impending birth of his child, but the trial court was free

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 3 of 4 to discount this claim given the history of Hoskins’s behavior while on

probation. Likewise, the trial court was free to consider Hoskins’s claims that

he has participated in substance abuse treatment in the past, has qualified to

become a volunteer fire fighter, intends to seek new friends, and believes he can

successfully resolve his other legal problems, as well as the probation

department’s recommendation that Hoskins serve his time on home detention,

in light of his repeated and continual violations of probation in this case.

[8] We find that the trial court did not err by revoking probation or ordering

Hoskins to serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Najam, J., and Robb, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-7 | June 21, 2019 Page 4 of 4