Sheila Johnson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 21, 2016
• Docket: 49A05-1603-CR-665
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 21 2016, 8:08 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court

the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Deborah Markisohn Gregory F. Zoeller Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sheila Johnson, October 21, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1603-CR-665 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy Jones, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff. Trial Court Cause No. 49G08-1507-CM-26910

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-665 | October 21, 2016 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Sheila Johnson got into a dispute with her neighbors about toys her children

had thrown into their yard. In her children’s presence, Johnson pushed one of

her neighbors and slapped a phone out of his hands. Johnson also called her

neighbors derogatory names and encouraged her children to do the same.

Johnson was convicted of misdemeanor battery and sentenced to probation. As

a condition of her probation, the trial court ordered her to complete parenting

classes. Johnson now appeals, arguing that requiring her to complete parenting

classes as a condition of her probation is not reasonably related to her

rehabilitation for misdemeanor battery on her neighbor. Because Johnson

encouraged her children to participate in the taunting of the neighbor that she

battered, we conclude that requiring Johnson to complete parenting classes as a

condition of her probation is reasonably related to her treatment and the

protection of public safety. We therefore affirm the trial court.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In June 2015, Josh VanWolde and his partner Kevin Doty lived next to

Johnson on the eastside of Indianapolis. Johnson lived with her two children,

her mother, and her deceased sister’s three children.

[3] One day that month, Josh found trash and children’s toys in their backyard and

told Kevin about it. Concerned about their dogs eating the trash and toys,

Kevin went to Johnson’s house to return the items and told Johnson that the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-665 | October 21, 2016 Page 2 of 5 children were throwing things in their yard. Johnson said she would “handle

it.” Tr. p. 44.

[4] Later that day, Josh and Kevin found more trash and toys in their backyard,

including some of the same toys from before. Josh accompanied Kevin to

Johnson’s house for the second time that day. Johnson was there, along with

her mother, “a variety of other similar aged women,” and the children. Id. at

18, 20, 29. Johnson was “instantly hostile and overly aggressive.” Id. at 18

(Josh explaining that it “went from [‘]we’d like to talk[’] to [‘]red zone[’] pretty

quick”). Josh took out his phone and tried to record the encounter; however,

Johnson shoved Josh off the steps and slapped the phone out of his hands.

Johnson told Josh and Kevin that it was their problem and that she was not

responsible for the children’s actions. See id. at 19, 28. Johnson swung her

arms at Josh, id. at 26 (Josh “flinch[ed]” in response), and called Josh and

Kevin “faggots” and made “gay jokes,” id. at 25, 28. Johnson also encouraged

the children to “shout and chant” these things to Josh and Kevin. Id. at 25. In

short, the situation was “out of control.” Id. at 20.

[5] Josh and Kevin went home and called 911. An officer from the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department responded and spoke to Josh and Kevin first.

The officer then went to Johnson’s house. Johnson was “[e]xtremely aggressive

and uncooperative” with the officer and continued to refer to Josh and Kevin as

“faggots” in front of the children. Id. at 33-34. When the officer expressed

concern that Johnson was using this language in front of the children, Johnson

told the officer, “Don’t worry about my children, bit**.” Id. at 34.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-665 | October 21, 2016 Page 3 of 5 [6] The State later charged Johnson with Class B misdemeanor battery. Following

a bench trial, Johnson was convicted as charged. The trial court sentenced

Johnson to 180 days, with 178 days suspended to probation. As a condition of

her probation, the court ordered Johnson to complete parenting classes, anger-

management classes, and forty hours of community service.

[7] Johnson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [8] Johnson raises one argument on appeal. She contends that the trial court

abused its discretion in ordering her to complete parenting classes as a

condition of her probation. As a condition of probation, the trial court may

require a defendant to, among other things, “[p]articipate in a treatment

program, educational class, or rehabilitative service provided by a probation

department or by referral to an agency.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(4). The

trial court has broad discretion in determining the appropriate conditions of a

defendant’s probation. Meunier-Short v. State, 52 N.E.3d 927, 936 (Ind. Ct. App.

2016). Our review is limited to determining whether the conditions placed on

the defendant are “reasonably related to the treatment of the defendant and the

protection of public safety.” Id. (quotation omitted).

[9] Johnson argues that requiring her to complete parenting classes as a condition

of her probation is not “‘reasonably related’ to her rehabilitation for a

misdemeanor battery on a neighbor.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10; see also Appellant’s

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-665 | October 21, 2016 Page 4 of 5 Reply Br. p. 5-8. We disagree. The facts show that the dispute in this case

started when the children threw trash and toys into Josh and Kevin’s backyard.

When Kevin went to Johnson’s house to address the issue, Johnson said she

would take care of it. But when some of the same toys were thrown back into

their yard later that same day, Josh and Kevin returned to Johnson’s house.

Johnson, who claimed no responsibility for the children’s actions, instantly

became hostile and aggressive with Josh and Kevin. In the children’s presence,

Johnson pushed Josh off the steps and slapped his phone out of his hands. She

also called Josh and Kevin derogatory names and encouraged the children to

shout and chant the same things to them, creating an “out-of-control” situation.

Because Johnson encouraged the children to participate in the taunting of the

neighbor that she battered, thereby involving them in her crime, we conclude

that requiring Johnson to complete parenting classes as a condition of her

probation is reasonably related to her treatment and the protection of public

safety. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

[10] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1603-CR-665 | October 21, 2016 Page 5 of 5