Larry Holder, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED 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. Aug 06 2010, 8:52 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: THOMAS A. DYSERT Petersburg, Indiana GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana BRIAN REITZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA LARRY O. HOLDER, JR., Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 63A01-1002-CR-65 APPEAL FROM THE PIKE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Jeffrey L. Biesterveld, Judge Cause No. 63C01-0510-FB-658 August 6, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge Larry O. Holder, Jr. appeals from the trial court s order revoking his probation and imposing the previously suspended portion of his sentence for burglary, a class B felony. Holder raises the following issue for our review: Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing a two-year executed sentence upon finding that Holder violated the conditions of his probation? We affirm. On October 27, 2005, the State charged Holder with class B felony burglary, class D felony theft, and class D felony possession of stolen property. Holder agreed to plead guilty to class B felony burglary in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts. His plea agreement was entered on January 2, 2009, and he was sentenced on February 2, 2009 to a term of 20 years with 1,204 days credit and 1,204 days good-time credit, and the remaining time suspended to probation on the condition that Holder successfully complete a substance abuse program at Lighthouse Recovery Center. One of the terms of Holder s probation was that he refrain from the use of alcoholic beverages in any form or quantity. Appellant s Appendix at 102. On February 26, 2009, the State filed a petition to revoke Holder s probation alleging that Holder had violated the terms of his probation by appearing at the Lighthouse Recovery Center while intoxicated. At a August 10, 2009 hearing, Holder admitted violating the conditions of his probation by drinking quite a bit of a sixty-four-ounce bottle of mouthwash that was thirty percent alcohol. Transcript at 13. On January 6, 2010, citing Holder s extensive criminal history and his unsuitability for alternative placements, the trial 2 court ordered Holder to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence less 316 days served with 316 days good time credit. Holder now appeals. Although Holder argues that we should review the trial court s sentencing decision for appropriateness, the proper standard of review of a trial court s sentencing decision regarding probation violations is an abuse-of-discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1001-02 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (quoting Gilfillen v. State, 582 N.E.2d 821, 824 (Ind. 1991)). The trial court was well within its discretion upon finding Holder admitted to a probation violation to order that Holder serve the remainder of his unexecuted sentence. See Ind. Code Ann. ยง 35-38-2-3(g) (West, Westlaw through 2010 Public Laws approved and effective through 3/25/2010). Holder s criminal history is extensive spanning eight counties and almost thirty years involving the commission of thirteen felonies and twenty-four misdemeanors. Holder was given the opportunity to address his substance abuse problems, but did not take advantage of that opportunity. His criminal history reveals that previous attempts at probation have failed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion here. Judgment affirmed. BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
