Nicholas Cooper v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 9, 2015
• Docket: 34A05-1506-CR-567
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Dec 09 2015, 6:33 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 Donald E.C. Leicht Gregory F. Zoeller Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Katherine Modesitt Cooper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Nicholas Cooper, December 9, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No. 34A05-1506-CR-567 v. Appeal from the Howard Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable William C. Appellee-Plaintiff. Menges, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 34D01-1112-FB-1106

Barnes, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1506-CR-567 | December 9, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Nicholas Cooper appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court for the

revocation of his probation. We affirm.

Issue [2] Cooper raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly

revoked Cooper’s entire suspended sentence for his probation violations.

Facts [3] In December 2011, the State charged Cooper with Class B felony dealing in

methamphetamine and Class B felony possession of methamphetamine. He

pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, and the trial court

sentenced him to fifteen years in the Department of Correction with three years

suspended to probation. In 2013, Cooper filed a petition for sentence

modification, which the trial court granted. The trial court modified his

sentence by suspending the balance of the executed sentence and ordering

Cooper to participate in the Community Transition Program. Cooper was

released from incarceration and began participation in the Re-Entry Court

Program.

[4] In November 2013 and August 2014, the trial court found that Cooper was in

indirect contempt of court for violating the terms and conditions of the Re-

Entry Court Program. In December 2014, the Re-Entry Court Program

indicated that it intended to terminate Cooper’s participation in the program

because he had absconded. The trial court terminated Cooper from the Re- Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1506-CR-567 | December 9, 2015 Page 2 of 4 Entry Court Program and found probable cause that Cooper had violated the

terms and conditions of his probation. The State then filed a petition to revoke

Cooper’s suspended sentence, and Cooper admitted to violating his probation.

At a sentencing hearing, Cooper testified that he became “overwhelmed” with

the Re-Entry Court Program’s rules and “panicked and ran.” Tr. p. 4. He

admitted that he was gone for “[a] couple months.” Id. Cooper also admitted

to using “[m]orphine and spice” and said that he “[m]ight have” used heroin.

Id. at 7. The trial court ordered that the balance of Cooper’s suspended

sentence be executed. Cooper now appeals.

Analysis [5] Cooper argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the balance

of his suspended sentence. According to Cooper, the trial court should have

reimposed the original sentence of fifteen years with three years suspended to

probation less his credit time. A trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation

violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State,

878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the

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

[6] Under Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h), if the trial court “finds that the

person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period,

and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period,” the trial

court may impose one or more of the following sanctions:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1506-CR-567 | December 9, 2015 Page 3 of 4 (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.

[7] Cooper argues that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion because it

automatically imposed the entire suspended sentence. However, the trial court

had previously granted Cooper significant leniency when it modified his

sentence. Cooper then admitted that he absconded from the Re-Entry Court

Program for a couple of months, used morphine and spice, and might have

used heroin. Given Cooper’s multiple serious violations and prior leniency

granted to him, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it ordered

him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence in the

Department of Correction.

Conclusion [8] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed Cooper’s previously

suspended sentence as a result of his probation violations. We affirm.

[9] Affirmed.

[10] Kirsch, J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1506-CR-567 | December 9, 2015 Page 4 of 4