Michael Duckett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 23, 2015
• Docket: 29A05-1507-CR-912
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 23 2015, 9:53 am this 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 Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller Hansen Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Noblesville, Indiana Paula J. Beller Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Duckett, December 23, 2015 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 29A05-1507-CR-912 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix, Appellee-Petitioner Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29C01-1202-FA-1562

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 1 of 3 [1] Michael Duckett appeals the judgment of the trial court modifying the terms of

his sentence and ordering a portion of his previously suspended sentence to be

executed as the result of a probation violation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts [2] Duckett pleaded guilty to class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug and the trial

court sentenced him to twelve years, with six years executed and six years

suspended. Duckett served a portion of this sentence and began a probationary

period on May 17, 2012.

[3] Since that time, Duckett has violated the terms of his probation three times.

The trial court modified Duckett’s sentence following each of these violations.

On April 2, 2015, following the most recent violation, the trial court further

modified Duckett’s sentence, resulting in an executed portion of 1611 days

incarceration from the date of the order. Three years of Duckett’s sentence

remains suspended. Duckett now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] We afford great deference to a trial court’s sentencing decision in a probation

revocation proceeding and we will review it only for an abuse of discretion.

Sharp v. State, 817 N.E.2d 644, 646 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). An abuse of discretion

occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of

the facts and circumstances before it. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 2 of 3 [5] Here, Duckett does not dispute that he has violated his probation on multiple

occasions. However, he “submits that a maximum sentence in this case was

unwarranted and is an abuse of discretion.” Appellant’s App. p. 8. This

appears to constitute the entirety of his argument, as he offers no further

explanation. Id.

[6] We find this argument unpersuasive to say the least. Despite being given

numerous opportunities to reform his behavior, Duckett continued to violate

the terms of his probation. Furthermore, we do not know where Duckett gets

the idea that the trial court imposed the “maximum sentence” in this case, as

three years of his total sentence remain suspended. Id. Duckett has simply

asked us to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court without making

any attempt to convince us that the trial court erred. It is clear that such a

request must fail and, accordingly, we find that the trial court was well within

its discretion to modify Duckett’s sentence as it did.

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

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1507-CR-912 | December 23, 2015 Page 3 of 3