Ricardo Willis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 6, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-828
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Nov 06 2019, 9:09 am the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Daniel Hageman Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ricardo Willis, November 6, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-828 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Lisa Borges, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 49G04-1706-F4-22312

Bradford, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary [1] In June of 2018, Ricardo Willis pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary. In March

of 2019, the trial court found that Willis violated the terms of his community

corrections and probation placements by committing a new criminal offense.

The trial court revoked Willis’s sentence and ordered that the remainder of it be

executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Willis contends

that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) revoking his community

corrections placement and probation and (2) ordering him to pay probation

fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On June 13, 2018, Willis pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary and ultimately

received a sentence of six years, with one year executed in the DOC, two years

in Marion County Community Corrections, two years suspended to probation,

and one year suspended without probation. On August 31, 2018, while in

community corrections, Willis went to Methodist Hospital for chest pains.

After Willis was discharged, the nursing staff called law enforcement to inform

them that Willis was refusing to leave and being disorderly. IU Health Police

Officer Matthew Dixon arrived at the emergency room and instructed Willis

that he needed to leave the hospital. A verbal argument ensued, during which

Officer Dixon instructed Willis to leave the hospital multiple times, which

Willis refused to do. IU Health Police Officer Dustin Dishman arrived on scene

and instructed Willis to leave the hospital three times, to which Willis replied,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 2 of 6 “F*** you, [I]’m not leaving.” Ex. 2. After being instructed to leave for a fourth

time, Willis replied that the only way to get him to leave would be to take him

to jail. Willis was arrested and taken into police custody.

[3] On August 31, 2018, a notice of violation of the terms of his community

corrections was filed against Willis. On September 20, 2018, Willis was charged

with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. On September 25, 2018, a notice

of violation of the terms of his probation was filed against Willis. On January

28, 2019, Willis pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass. On

March 15, 2019, an evidentiary hearing was held regarding both notices of

violation, after which the trial court found that Willis had violated the terms.

The trial court revoked Willis’s placement in community corrections and

probation and ordered the remainder of his sentence to be executed in the

DOC.

Discussion and Decision I. Revocation [4] Willis contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his

community corrections placement and probation. “We treat a hearing on a

petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as

we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation.” Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d

688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated. 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. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted).

[5] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the

entirety of Willis’s sentence. Willis violated the terms of his community

corrections placement and probation by committing a new offense, which alone

can support a revocation. See Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App.

1999) (concluding that a violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient

to revoke probation). Moreover, the nature of Willis’s violation, taken together

with his criminal history, shows a continuing disregard for authority and the

rule of law. Since 1998, Willis has been convicted of fifteen felonies and one

misdemeanor in Indiana, Illinois, and Kentucky, including armed robbery,

burglary, criminal confinement, stalking, theft, forgery, and battery. Willis also

has multiple probation violations; three prison-conduct incidents while in the

DOC; and, at the time of his arrest in this case, multiple outstanding arrest

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 4 of 6 warrants. Willis asks us to consider his revocation in light of his testimony that

he refused to leave the hospital because it would have amounted to a violation

of his community corrections. Willis’s testimony and credibility were

considered and weighed by the trial court. Willis’s argument is merely an

invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Luke v. State, 51

N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Therefore, Willis has failed

to establish that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community

corrections placement and probation.

II. Probation Fees [6] Willis contends that because his sentence was revoked before he was ever

placed on probation, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to pay

probation fees. Because sentencing decisions include decisions to impose fees

and costs, we review a trial court’s decision ordering fees and costs for an abuse

of discretion. Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). While

the trial court’s sentencing order in this matter included probation fees, its order

on community corrections and probation violation does not mention probation

fees nor did the trial court mention them during the revocation hearing.

Moreover, the parties agree that clarification from the trial court is needed

regarding the ordered fees. Here, Willis did not serve any time on probation,

but fees may be appropriate for the time he was in community corrections.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 5 of 6 [7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and

remanded with instructions for the trial court to recalculate the amount of fees

or costs owed, if any.

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-828| November 6, 2019 Page 6 of 6