RUSSELL v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a hearing, the trial court found that Travon Russell violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense while on probation. The trial court ordered Russell to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). On appeal, Russell claims that: (1) the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that Russell violated the terms of his probation; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion when sanctioning him. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issues

[2] Russell raises two issues for our review, which we restate as:

I.  Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Russell violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense.

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when sanctioning Russell.

Facts

[3] Russell was on probation in December 2023 after pleading guilty to possession of cocaine or a narcotic drug, a Level 4 felony, on July 19, 2022. The trial court sentenced Russell to seven years, with three years executed in the DOC and four years suspended to probation. As a condition of Russell's probation, he was required to “behave well” and not commit another criminal offense. Appellant's App. Vol II. p. 65.

[4] On December 10, 2023, Russell was arrested for invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, after violating a protection order his ex-girlfriend obtained. Although Russell was prohibited from having contact with his ex-girlfriend, he attempted to enter her bedroom window. The police were called and found Russell standing on his ex-girlfriend's porch. The State charged Russell with invasion of privacy, a Class A misdemeanor, in Cause No. 02D04-2312-CM-4859, and he pleaded guilty to the charge.

[5] The next day, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Russell's probation due to the new criminal offense and Russell's failure to maintain good behavior. At the probation revocation hearing, Russell stated that he had a “manic episode” and went into a river. Tr. Vol. I p. 9. He claimed that he went to his ex-girlfriend's house because he was freezing and close to hypothermia; he did not know anyone else that lived closer than her. He also stated that he pleaded guilty to invasion of privacy because he felt intimidated by officers standing behind him in court at his initial hearing.

[6] The trial court did not find Russell's statements to be credible and found that Russell violated the terms of his probation as alleged. The trial court then ordered Russell to serve his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. Russell now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Probation Violation

[7] Russell first argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation. We review a trial court's determination regarding probation violations for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id.

[8] “ ‘Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.’ ” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we do not reweigh the evidence or credibility. Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267. We will affirm if “there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.” Id. “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “The requirement that a probationer obey federal, state, and local laws is automatically a condition of probation by operation of law.” Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(b).

[9] Here, the trial court found that Russell violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense and by failing to behave well. Russell violated a protection order prohibiting him from contacting his ex-girlfriend and was convicted of invasion of privacy. Russell claims that his behavior did not violate the terms of his probation because he had a “possible insanity defense” to the invasion of privacy offense. Appellant's Br. p. 8. The trial court found Russell's explanation for the offense unworthy of credit. We may not reassess the trial court's credibility determination. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Russell violated the terms of his probation.

II. Probation Sanction

[10] Next, Russell challenges the sanction imposed by the trial court as a result of the probation violation. We review a trial court's determination regarding sanctions for probation violations for an abuse of discretion. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id.

[11] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Id. “First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Id. “Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.” Id. Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the 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.

“While it is correct that probation may be revoked on evidence of violation of a single condition, the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendant's probation violation ․” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[12] Here, the trial court ordered Russell to serve the full four years of his previously suspended sentence. Russell argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing this sanction. We disagree. Russell violated a protection order by attempting to enter his ex-girlfriend's house, and Russell pleaded guilty to the resulting charge of invasion of privacy. Russell also has a history of criminal convictions that includes possession of cocaine and possession of firearms. Given Russell's criminal history and his violation of a protection order while on probation, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Russell serve his previously suspended four-year sentence in the DOC.

Conclusion

[13] The State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Russell violated his probation, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Russell. Accordingly, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.