JOHNSON v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Cornelious Johnson appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and its ensuing order that he serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. Johnson raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and entered its ensuing sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2022, Johnson pleaded guilty to carrying a handgun without a license, which was enhanced to a Level 5 felony based on a prior felony conviction. At that time, Johnson was on probation in another cause. In accordance with Johnson's guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him to three years, with one year executed and two years suspended, one of which was suspended specifically to reporting probation. The court ordered Johnson's sentence to be served consecutively to the sentence on his revoked probation in the other cause.

[3] Johnson began his probationary period in the instant cause in August 2022. Five months later, the State filed its notice of probation violation, alleging that Johnson had failed to comply with court-ordered substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations and treatment. The State further alleged that Johnson had not been honest with his probation officer about his attempts at compliance with those orders.

[4] The court held a hearing on the State's notice in November 2023. At that hearing, the State presented witnesses who testified that Johnson had scheduled his substance-abuse and mental-health evaluations but did not follow through with either evaluation. In response, Johnson provided evidence to show that, after the State had filed its notice of violation, he completed his assessments. The trial court found Johnson to be in violation of the conditions of probation, and it revoked his probation.

[5] At an ensuing sentencing hearing, Johnson testified that he lacked residential stability and phone access. He also testified that he had a learning disability and did not understand the conditions of his probation. In response, the State noted that, after it had filed the notice of violation, Johnson “absconded” and was not found until the execution of an arrest warrant some nine months later. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 60.

[6] The court then ordered Johnson to serve 545 of his previously suspended 730 days in the Department of Correction. In ordering that sentence, the court stated:

I certainly hope that I have shown myself willing to assist people who have struggled via learning disability or such as they navigate probation or Community Corrections. But quite frankly, Mr. Johnson, it appears you just don't want to do it. I can understand struggling with [service-care providers]. But we—when that's coupled with ․ us completely losing track of you and not finding you again until ․ the warrant's been served, that's ․ just simple non-compliance.

And then when I look at your track record on previous supervision and it's the same, it just shows me that you don't really want to do probation. So I'm certainly not going to put you back on it.

Id. at 61. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Johnson appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and its ensuing sentence. As our Supreme Court has stated:

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.

Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

[8] We initially note that, although Johnson frames his arguments on appeal around both the revocation of his probation and also the court's imposition of sentence following that revocation, the substance of his argument on appeal is focused only on his ensuing sentence. Johnson does not argue that the State presented insufficient evidence to show that he failed to comply with the conditions of his probation. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's revocation of his probation.

[9] As for the court's order that Johnson serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction, Johnson's essential argument is that the trial court abused its discretion “by not fully considering the effect of [Johnson's] disabilities on his ability to comply” with the conditions of his probation and instead “merely dismissing his efforts as simply not wanting to do it.” Appellant's Br. at 9.

[10] But the trial court's decision is within the logic and the effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Johnson does not dispute that he has a history of failing to comply with the conditions of his probation. Johnson also does not dispute that he absconded for about nine months following the State's notice of violation here. Nor does Johnson dispute that he only began to comply with the probation conditions at issue here after the State filed its notice of violation. All of those undisputed facts support the trial court's sentencing judgment. Further, Johnson's argument on appeal simply seeks to have this Court reweigh the evidence in the manner most favorable to him and substitute that judgment for the trial court's, which we will not do.

[11] Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Johnson's probation and its ensuing order for Johnson to serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence.

[12] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.