Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
Jul 22 2009, 10:07 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LEANNA WEISSMANN Lawrenceburg, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE DONGIEUX WIGGINS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TERRANCE COLLINS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable James Humphrey, Judge Cause No. 15C01-0612-FC-62
July 22, 2009 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Case Summary Terrance Collins appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. We affirm. Issue Collins raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the entire seven years of his suspended sentence. Facts On June 20, 2007, Collins pled guilty to Class C felony possession of a lookalike substance with intent to distribute. Collins’s plea agreement provided for an eight-year sentence, with seven years suspended to probation. According to the rules and conditions of probation, Collins was not to commit another criminal offense. On March 18, 2008, and March 25, 2008, Collins was charged with obstructing official business and theft, respectively. On August 9, 2008, Collins was charged with theft and criminal trespass. As a result, Collins’s probation officer filed a notice of probation violation. During the initial hearing on December 10, 2008, Collins admitted to violating his probation, and the court found him in violation. On December 11, 2008, the court revoked Collins’s probation and ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended seven-year sentence. Collins now appeals. Analysis Collins contends the trial court erred when it ordered him to serve the entire seven years of his suspended sentence. We review “a trial court’s sentencing decision in a probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of discretion.” 2 Sanders v. State, 825
N.E.2d 952, 957 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. “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). “If the trial court finds the person violated a condition of probation, it may order execution of any part of the sentence that was suspended. . . .” Rosa v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1119, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005); Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(3). “The violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Id. Collins argues that the seven-year sentence is unnecessary to bring about his reform, and asserts that his admission should be seen as an acknowledgment of a problem and a desire to change. Though we commend Collins for assuming responsibility, this does not alter the facts. Collins has an extensive criminal history, including nine juvenile adjudications, twelve adult convictions, and four probation violations. Probation is a rehabilitative tool that “gives the defendant an opportunity to show he is able to rehabilitate himself and become a useful member of society. . . .” Hart v. State, 889 N.E.2d 1266, 1271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). After considering Collins’s criminal and
juvenile history, the trial court found that probation was no longer the appropriate sanction. It was within the trial court’s discretion to order execution of the entire
suspended sentence. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(g)(3). Given Collins’s criminal history and past disregard for probation, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Collins to serve the entire seven years of his suspended sentence.
Conclusion The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Collins to serve the entire seven years of his suspended sentence. We affirm. Affirmed. BAKER, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.