COLGLAZIER v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Trevin Lee Colglazier appeals the trial court's order that he serve his previously-suspended sentence for violating the terms of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In December 2023, Colglazier and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Colglazier agreed to plead guilty to possession of a narcotic drug as a level 6 felony under cause number 03D02-2309-F6-4998 (“Cause No. 4998”), for which he would be sentenced to 730 days with 726 days suspended to probation, and to resisting law enforcement and possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies under cause number 03D02-2310-F6-5033 (“Cause No. 5033”), for which he would be sentenced to concurrent terms of 730 days with 588 days suspended to probation, and the State agreed to dismiss other charges.¹ The agreement provided the sentence in Cause No. 4998 would be served consecutive to the sentence in Cause No. 5033. Colglazier pled guilty and the court sentenced him pursuant to the plea agreement.

[3] On February 12, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that Colglazier violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC on January 11, 23, and 31, 2024, by failing to obtain and maintain employment, and by failing to follow substance abuse recommendations by St. Peter's Lifeworks.

[4] On May 6, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing at which Colglazier's probation officer testified that he administered oral drug screens on January 11, 23, and 31, 2024, and that Colglazier tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC on each of those dates. The probation officer testified that, when he confronted Colglazier about the drug screen results, Colglazier stated “he does not use drugs and has never used drugs.” Transcript Volume II at 5. The probation officer indicated Colglazier did not attempt to obtain employment while under his supervision, “[t]he only place he said that he was waiting on job pending Cummins that I was never able to get verification,” and Colglazier did not provide him with any applications which he had submitted. Id. The probation officer testified Colglazier underwent a substance abuse evaluation in January, “[a]fter the substance abuse evaluation, he decided he was going to seek out a different substance abuse evaluation,” and, “[a]fter reaching out to contacts at St. Peter's Lifeworks, it was found that he was dishonest enough about his usage and his desire to get treatment that they deemed his evaluation unfit to continue treatment.” Id. at 6. When asked “[d]id you attempt to get him lined up with any other treatment program,” the probation officer testified that Colglazier “stated he wanted to go to TASC but he never made nor any effort to obtain an evaluation from TASC.” Id.

[5] Colglazier testified: “He said that I said I didn't use drugs. I said I didn't use illegal drugs. I didn't buy them but a vape pin [sic] from the gas station and it was supposed to be CBD nothing illegal and then Vyvanse which I am prescribed.” Id. at 8. His counsel asked “were you prescribed and I am sorry, would you state the medication again for us,” and Colglazier answered “Vyvanse for ADD and I have had ADD for many years but when I got [a] brain injury it increased my symptoms and the Vyvanse helps a lot for that.” Id. at 9. He indicated that he was in a car accident in 2013 and that he “was working for Randy at Percifields” working on cars beginning in January until he was arrested in February. Id. at 10. When asked “do you agree or disagree that you were to go to treatment at St. Peter's Lifeworks,” he replied “Yes. I did. I went and had the evaluation. They said I didn't need any treatment and then [his probation officer] emailed the lady and then she said that I go to TASC. I called TASC and they said they have walk ins on Thursday ․ I was never able to do that.” Id. at 10-11. The court found that Colglazier violated the terms of his probation under both causes.

[6] The court moved to disposition. Colglazier's probation officer indicated that Colglazier was resistant to following any of his supervisory orders and that he did not believe Colglazier was a good candidate for probation or community corrections. The court stated, “out of the six allegations, five out of six had to do with illegal drugs of which [ ] you pled to two of them and still continue the narrative that you don't need help or never had issue with illegal substances.” Id. at 19. The court ordered that Colglazier serve his previously-suspended sentences in Cause Nos. 4998 and 5033 in the Department of Corrections.

Discussion

[7] Colglazier asserts the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that he serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentence “without granting him another opportunity to prove himself.” Appellant's Brief at 9. He points to his testimony that he was using a vape pen with CBD, he is prescribed Vyvanse for ADD and a brain injury, he was in a car accident in 2013, he was working on cars, and he had a substance abuse evaluation and was told that he did not need treatment.

[8] We review trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). “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.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “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.” Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

[9] The record reveals that Colglazier violated the conditions of his probation on several occasions. He tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC on January 11, 23, and 31, 2024. Colglazier's probation officer testified that Colglazier did not attempt to obtain employment and did not provide any submitted applications. His probation officer testified that, “[a]fter reaching out to contacts at St. Peter's Lifeworks, it was found that [Colglazier] was dishonest enough about his usage and his desire to get treatment that they deemed his evaluation unfit to continue treatment.” Transcript Volume II at 6. Further, the probation officer indicated that Colglazier was resistant to following his orders and that he did not believe Colglazier was a good candidate for probation or community corrections. The court noted that Colglazier continued his narrative that he did not need help or never had issue with illegal substances. We will not judge the credibility of the witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Given the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Colglazier to serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentences under Cause Nos. 4998 and 5033.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also charged Colglazier with possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor under Cause No. 4998 and with possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor and possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor under Cause No. 5033. The agreement provided that the State agreed to dismiss these charges as well as cause number 03D02-2308-CM-4555.

Brown, Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.