Terry Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 6, 2016
• Docket: 84A05-1601-CR-205
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 06 2016, 7:05 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court 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 Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Terry Wilson, July 6, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 84A05-1601-CR-205 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David R. Bolk, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1407-F6-1876

Baker, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] Terry Wilson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues

that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. Finding

the evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts [2] On July 13, 2015, Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine

and possession of paraphernalia. In exchange for his guilty plea, he accepted

sentences of two years for the methamphetamine conviction and one year for

the paraphernalia conviction, to be served concurrently. Wilson received credit

for time served, and the remainder of the sentence was suspended to supervised

probation. One condition of probation was that Wilson successfully complete a

sober living program at a residential treatment facility.

[3] Wilson resided at the treatment facility for a while, but walked out on August 2,

2015. As a result, the facility dismissed him from its program. The State filed a

notice of probation violation. He and the State agreed, in exchange for his

admission that he violated the terms of his probation, to modify the probation

agreement: Wilson was to be evaluated for acceptance into a jail linkage

program, and, if accepted, he would complete that program and then complete

the sober living program. At an October 15, 2015, hearing on the violation, the

trial court accepted the new agreement and ordered Wilson to be evaluated for

the jail linkage program.

[4] At some point, the trial court became aware that Wilson had not participated in

the evaluation, and it scheduled a hearing for November 19, 2015. At that

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 2 of 4 hearing, the trial court asked Wilson why he had not attended the evaluation it

had ordered. Wilson answered that he felt he could quit methamphetamine by

himself. The trial court asked, “So the bottom line is you’re not gonna do it,

even though you agreed last time in Court to do it; is that right?” Tr. p. 13-14.

Wilson responded, “Yes your Honor.” Id. at 14.

[5] On November 23, 2015, the State filed an Amended Notice of Probation

Violation, alleging that Wilson had violated the conditions of his probation

both by failing to complete the sober living program and by failing to attend the

jail linkage program’s evaluation. At a December 17, 2015, sanctions hearing,

the trial court found that Wilson had violated the terms of his probation. It

revoked his probation, and ordered Wilson to serve the balance of his sentence.

Wilson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [6] Wilson argues that the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation. First,

he argues that his failure to complete the sober living program cannot be held

against him because the later probation agreement supplanted the earlier one.

Second, he argues that the only evidence presented at the sanctions hearing

regarding his refusal to be evaluated for the jail linkage program was his

probation officer saying that the probation revocation petition alleged that he

refused to be evaluated. He concludes, “[n]o evidence was presented to the

court regarding whether Wilson actually failed to enroll in the jail linkage

program.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 3 of 4 [7] We will focus on the second of these claims, as it is dispositive. It is well settled

that the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke

probation. Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). It is

equally clear that a defendant’s admission that he violated a condition of

probation is sufficient evidence to find that the condition had been violated.

See, e.g., Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 759, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[8] Here, Wilson admitted in open court, in direct response to a question from the

trial court, that he was intentionally violating a condition of his probation by

refusing to complete the evaluation for the jail linkage program. The trial court

made no error when it found that he was intentionally violating a condition of

his probation based on this admission.

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 4 of 4