ESTEP v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Michael Allen Estep appeals the trial court's order that he serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence following the court's revocation of his probation. Estep raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.

2. Whether the trial court's oral and written identification of Estep's credit time are inconsistent.

[2] We affirm the trial court's judgment but remand with instructions for the court to correct the inconsistent identifications of Estep's credit time.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In May 2019, Estep pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony theft pursuant to a written plea agreement. That agreement left sentencing open to the trial court's discretion provided that any executed time be capped at eighteen months. The court accepted Estep's plea agreement and sentenced him to 900 days with 365 days to be served on in-home detention with Howard County Community Corrections and the balance suspended to probation.

[4] On November 22, 2023, Estep's probation officer filed a petition to revoke Estep's probation on the ground that Estep had failed to report for drug screens and, further, had admitted to using illegal drugs. The trial court held a hearing on the petition to revoke, at which Estep admitted to the alleged violations. The trial court then revoked Estep's probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his term, namely, 472 days, in the Howard County Jail. In pronouncing that sentence, the court stated that Estep was entitled to credit time of seventy-six days. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 15. However, the court's ensuing written sentencing order and abstract of judgment identified credit time as seventy-four days. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 85-86.

[5] This appeal ensued.

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Estep to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.

[6] Estep appeals the trial court's order that he serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence following the revocation of his probation. 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).

[7] Estep argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. Specifically, he argues that he admitted to using marijuana, that he had been offered a job paying $27 an hour, and that a probation supervising officer testified that Estep “could” be successful on work release. Appellant's Br. at 7.

[8] Be that as it may, the trial court's decision is within the logic and the effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Estep's criminal history includes nineteen prior convictions. He has previously violated the conditions of probation. He failed to take advantage of the opportunities before him here, instead describing himself as using illegal drugs “all the time, all week long.” Tr. Vol. 2, p. 15. All of those undisputed facts support the trial court's sentencing judgment. Further, Estep's argument on appeal simply seeks to have this Court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

2. We remand to the trial court with instructions to correct the inconsistency between its oral and written awards of Estep's credit time.

[9] The parties do not dispute that the trial court's oral pronouncement of Estep's credit time and its written identification of the same in its sentencing order and abstract of judgment are inconsistent. We agree, and we remand to the trial court with instructions for it to correct that inconsistency.

Conclusion

[10] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court's order that Estep serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence, and we remand with instructions for the trial court to correct the inconsistency in the court's award of Estep's credit time.

[11] Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.