Roderic Jernigan, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 30, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-689
• 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 Aug 30 2018, 9:30 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE James A. Shoaf Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Columbus, Indiana Attorney General

Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Roderic Jernigan, Sr., August 30, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-689 v. Appeal from the Bartholomew Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 03D01-1512-F6-6335

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-689 | August 30, 2018 Page 1 of 3 [1] Roderic Jernigan, Sr., appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

[2] In August 2016, pursuant to a plea agreement, Jernigan pled guilty to level 6

felony operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .15 or

more and class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court

sentenced Jernigan to two years for the level 6 felony conviction, with all but

five days suspended, and to a concurrent sentence of one year of probation for

the class C misdemeanor conviction. Jernigan was also ordered to serve sixty

days of electronic monitoring.

[3] In October 2016, the State filed a probation revocation petition, alleging that

Jernigan tested positive for alcohol and failed to report to community

corrections for electronic monitoring. In November 2016, Jernigan admitted to

violating probation and entered into an agreement with the State, which

provided that if he successfully completed the Veterans Treatment Court

(“VTC”) program, the probation revocation petition would be dismissed, and if

he was terminated from the VTC program, the trial court would then determine

the appropriate sanction for his probation violations.

[4] The trial court gave Jernigan permission to travel to California from December

23, 2016 to January 2, 2017 to celebrate Christmas with his family. However,

in January 2017, Jernigan missed an appointment with his case manager and

failed to attend a status hearing. In December 2017, Jernigan was arrested in

Arizona and returned to Indiana.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-689 | August 30, 2018 Page 2 of 3 [5] In January 2018, the State filed a notice of VTC violations, alleging that

Jernigan had failed to attend appointments with his case manager, attend court

hearings, and return to Indiana after receiving permission to leave the state to

visit his family. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order finding that

Jernigan violated the conditions of the VTC program and terminating his

participation therein. The trial court then held a dispositional hearing on the

probation revocation petition. At the start of the hearing, Jernigan’s attorney

stated, “[M]y client is agreeable to eighteen months executed.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 19.

Jernigan was physically present and did not offer any objection. The trial court

then ordered Jernigan to serve eighteen months, which represents the balance of

his sentence, in the Bartholomew County Jail.

[6] Jernigan now appeals the revocation of his probation. Because Jernigan agreed

to serve the balance of his sentence, if there was any error it was invited and

therefore not subject to reversal. See Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 573 (Ind.

2018) (“[T]he doctrine of invited error prevents a party from taking advantage

of an error she ‘commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her

own neglect or misconduct.’”) (quoting Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 907

(Ind. 2005)). Accordingly, we affirm.

[7] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-689 | August 30, 2018 Page 3 of 3