Scott M. Vaughn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 5, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-1585
• 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 Dec 05 2019, 7:14 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 R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General Madison, Indiana Samantha M. Sumcad Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Scott M. Vaughn, December 5, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1585 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Plaintiff James Humphrey, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15C01-1108-FB-38

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Scott M. Vaughn appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to serve the

remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the Department of

Correction for violating his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In August 2012, eighteen-year-old Vaughn pled guilty to Class C felony escape,

Class D felony criminal confinement, Class D felony possession of a controlled

substance, Class D felony theft, and Class D felony auto theft (he was seventeen

at the time of the offenses but was tried as an adult). In exchange, the State

agreed to recommend an aggregate sentence of twenty years with eight years

executed and twelve years suspended to probation. The trial court accepted the

plea agreement and sentenced Vaughn accordingly.

[3] Vaughn was released from incarceration in May 2016. Three months later, in

September 2016, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that on

September 11 Vaughn consumed a controlled substance that wasn’t prescribed

for him and committed the offense of possession of paraphernalia. The State

later amended its notice to allege that Vaughn committed another offense on

September 11, possession of a syringe. Vaughn admitted these violations, and

the trial court ordered him to serve four years of his twelve-year suspended

sentence in the DOC.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 2 of 5 [4] In February 2019, the State filed another notice of probation violation, alleging

that on February 5 he committed the offenses of Level 3 felony dealing in

methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a syringe, and Class C

misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Vaughn was convicted of these

offenses in an April 2019 jury trial and later sentenced to fourteen years. See

15D01-1902-F3-5. In May 2019, the probation-violation hearing was held in

this case, and the trial court found that Vaughn violated his probation.

[5] Vaughn’s dispositional hearing was scheduled for June 18; however, it was

moved up to May 30 due to “security issues with Mr. Vaughn” in the Dearborn

County jail. Tr. p. 22. At the hearing, the jail commander testified that

Vaughn had gotten into “a few disagreements with officers as well as inmates”

and “dug a hole in the padding of one of the cells.” Id. at 19-20. The jail

commander also testified about an incident that occurred the day before. That

is, Vaughn and another inmate got into a fight, and the other inmate had to go

to the hospital for his injuries, which included a “fracture to the left orbital.” Id.

at 21. The State asked the trial court to revoke Vaughn’s “remaining suspended

sentence.” Id. at 27. Defense counsel asked the trial court to consider the PSI

that was recently completed in 15D01-1902-F3-5. Using that PSI, defense

counsel highlighted that Vaughn was a young man (twenty-five years old) who

had “a lot still to go for in his life”; had the support of his wife and family; had

mental-health issues, including bi-polar disorder; “had no history of drug use or

drug abuse up until his incarceration period”; and, although unemployed at the

time of his arrest, was “willing to work.” Id. at 16, 17. In announcing its

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 3 of 5 decision, the trial court explained that it was considering “all the matters

outlined in the [PSI],” that Vaughn had previously violated his probation in this

case (for which he was ordered to serve four years in the DOC), and “the

evidence presented here today regarding Mr. Vaughn’s behavior necessitating

that this hearing be moved in order to address [the] safety . . . and security

issues within the Law Enforcement Center.” Id. at 27-28. Given Vaughn’s

“history and the violence that has been described,” the court ordered him to

serve the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the DOC. Id. at

28; see also Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 210-11 (court’s written order noting that

it considered “evidence of the defendant’s behavior in the Dearborn County

Law Enforcement Center during the pendency of this matter and while

awaiting sentencing.”).

[6] Vaughn now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] Vaughn contends that the trial court should not have ordered him to serve the

remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC. Trial courts enjoy broad

discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, and

we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,

188 (Ind. 2007).

[8] Vaughn argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve

the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence because of the information

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 4 of 5 contained in his PSI, including his family support, mental-health issues, and

drug problems. At the dispositional hearing, defense counsel highlighted this

information for the trial court. And when the court announced its decision, it

specifically said that it was considering “all the matters outlined in the [PSI].”

Despite this evidence, the court found that in light of Vaughn’s previous

probation violation in this case and the “violence” committed by him in the

Dearborn County jail, it was ordering him to serve the remainder of his

suspended sentence. On appeal, Vaughn does not acknowledge the evidence

that was presented at the dispositional hearing regarding his behavior in jail or

that the trial court relied on this evidence in making its ruling. Given that

Vaughn violated his probation in this case in 2016, was ordered to serve four

years in the DOC, dealt in methamphetamine after being released from the

DOC, and then committed acts of “violence” while in jail awaiting disposition

in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him to serve

the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the DOC.

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 5 of 5