SHAFFER v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Emily Shaffer appeals her sentence following the trial court's revocation of her probation. She presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve 720 days of her previously suspended sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In June 2022, the State charged Shaffer with Level 5 felony fraud and Level 6 felony theft. In November, Shaffer pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony fraud, and, pursuant to her plea agreement, the State dismissed the theft charge.¹ Also pursuant to her plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Shaffer to three years with all but 120 days suspended to probation.

[4] On June 2, 2023, while Shaffer was on probation, she tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine. And on August 4, Shaffer was arrested for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. On August 8, the State filed a petition to revoke Shaffer's probation based on those alleged violations. On September 29, Shaffer began substance abuse treatment in a residential facility.

[5] During a hearing on the State's petition to revoke her probation in January 2024, Shaffer admitted that she had failed the drug test in June 2023 and that she had been convicted of Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine while on probation. The trial court revoked her probation and ordered her to serve 720 days in the Department of Correction. The court observed that “[c]ommitting a new criminal offense” is “the most serious violation of probation that someone can commit.” Tr. p. 41. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Shaffer contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve 720 days of her previously suspended sentence executed with the Department of Correction. As our Supreme Court has explained:

“Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Id. In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, id., or when the trial court misinterprets the law․

Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation. Id.

Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).

[7] Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) provides that,

[i]f 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.

[8] During the hearing on the State's petition, Shaffer presented evidence, including several exhibits, to show the progress she had made since starting the residential treatment for her substance abuse in September 2023. There is no doubt that Shaffer has benefitted from that treatment. But given Shaffer's admission to the two violations of her probation, including her conviction for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, the trial court acted within its discretion when it sentenced her. See, e.g., Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 187 (holding that former version of Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 “permits judges to sentence offenders using any one of or any combination of the enumerated options. This serves the public interest by giving judges the ability to order sentences they deem to be most effective and appropriate for individual defendants who violate probation.”).

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Shaffer admitted that she had used someone else's debit card to make several purchases without authorization.

Mathias, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.