Joanna M. Stoner, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In June of 2023, Joanna Stoner was placed on probation with home detention after pleading guilty to Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and admitting to being a habitual-vehicular-substance offender. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Stoner's probation, alleging that she had committed seven violations of the terms of her home-detention placement. Stoner admitted to the violations, after which the trial court revoked her home-detention placement, terminated her probation, and ordered her to serve 450 days of her previously-suspended sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Stoner argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve 450 days in the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 19, 2023, Stoner pled guilty to Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated and admitted that she was a habitual-vehicular-substance offender. Stoner was sentenced to 910 days, with ten days executed, 180 days on probation with home detention, and 720 days suspended to probation. The terms of Stoner's home-detention placement required her to obtain approval to leave her home, with authorization to go to predetermined locations only. She also was required to abstain from consuming or possessing certain substances, including marijuana.

[3] On September 12, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Stoner's probation, alleging that she had violated the terms of her home detention by leaving her residence without authorization on six separate dates and testing positive for marijuana. The State further alleged that as a result of Stoner's alleged violations, the Shelby County Probation Department (“SCPD”) had indicated that it was no longer willing to supervise Stoner's home detention. On November 30, 2023, Stoner admitted that she had violated the conditions of her probation. The trial court revoked Stoner's home-detention placement, terminated her probation, and ordered her to serve 450 days of her previously-suspended sentence in the DOC.¹

Discussion and Decision

[4] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. 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) (internal citations omitted).

[5] Once the trial court finds that a person has violated the terms of their probation, the trial court

may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). “Violation of a single condition of placement is sufficient to revoke placement.” Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).

[6] Stoner argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve a portion of her previously-suspended sentence in the DOC because her violations “were primarily technical in nature and occurred with benign intent.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. We cannot agree. Stoner admitted to violating the terms of her home-detention placement seven times. Six of the violations consisted of her leaving home without approval. Stoner's home-detention placement began on July 17, 2023. Her first violation occurred on August 4, 2023. Three others occurred on August 5, 13, and 24, 2023. The other two occurred on September 1 and 6, 2023. All six of Stoner's violations for leaving her home without permission occurred within two months of the beginning her placement, supporting the reasonable inference that Stoner would continue to commit violations. As a result of Stoner's repeated violations, the SCPD had indicated that it was no longer willing to supervise her home detention.

[7] The seventh violation consisted of her testing positive for THC on September 12, 2023, after ingesting a marijuana-based “gummy.” Tr. Vol. II p. 8. As we have previously stated, a positive drug screen is hardly a “mere ‘technical’ ” violation of probation. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[8] “Probation is a criminal sanction wherein a convicted defendant specifically agrees to accept conditions upon his behavior in lieu of imprisonment.” Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244, 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. After pleading guilty to the underlying felony offense and admitting to being a habitual-vehicular-substance offender, Stoner agreed to the terms of her home-detention placement in lieu of incarceration. She then, in short order, failed to abide by said terms, committing seven violations. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Stoner's placement in home detention, terminating her probation, and ordering her to serve 450 days of her previously-suspended sentence in the DOC.

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   In sentencing Stoner, the trial court awarded her credit for sixty-four days.

Memorandum Decision by Judge Bradford

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Felix concur. Altice, C.J., and Felix, J., concur.