JACKSON v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Quintin Delany Jackson (“Jackson”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation in two cause numbers. He raises one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 27, 2015, Jackson and three accomplices robbed Marion Rheam and Angela Eakins at gunpoint in the Hoosier Park Casino parking lot. Jackson pointed a black revolver at the victims and demanded money, threatening to “beat [their] ass” if they did not comply. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 35. The victims surrendered over $200, and Jackson fled in a black Jeep Liberty. Police quickly apprehended Jackson and his accomplices, recovering money from Jackson. As a result of these actions, the State charged Jackson with Level 3 felony armed robbery and alleged he was a habitual offender under cause number 48C01-1510-F3-1811 (“Cause 1811”). Jackson pleaded guilty to armed robbery pursuant to a plea agreement. On April 17, 2017, the trial court sentenced Jackson to ten years with five years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”), two years in Community Corrections, and three years suspended to probation.

[3] While serving his sentence in Community Corrections, Jackson committed multiple violations, including using illicit drugs, being disrespectful to an officer, and having unaccounted time on numerous occasions. On May 7, 2020, the State filed a notice of violation of suspended sentence and alleged that Jackson “[f]ailed to successfully complete the Continuum of Sanctions Program.” Id. at 213. On May 18, 2020, the trial court found Jackson had violated his placement conditions and revoked eighteen days and ordered the time to be served in the Madison County Detention Center. The trial court further revoked 365 days that were previously suspended to probation and ordered that Jackson serve that time in Community Corrections.

[4] On July 24, 2020, while still in the Community Corrections work release program, Jackson failed to return from a scheduled release at the required time, ultimately returning four hours and fifteen minutes late. As a result, the State charged Jackson with Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention under cause number 48C01-2008-F6-1808 (“Cause 1808”). Jackson pleaded guilty to this charge, and on October 4, 2021, he was sentenced to two years suspended to probation.

[5] On July 29, 2020, the State petitioned to terminate Jackson's placement in Community Corrections on the Continuum of Sanctions program under Cause 1811, alleging that Jackson had violated the terms and conditions of his placement nine times by having unaccounted time and unknown whereabouts, returning late, failing to return to lawful detention, being under the influence, and having outstanding fees. On August 5, 2020, the State filed a notice alleging that Jackson violated the terms and conditions of his suspended sentence under Cause 1811 by failing to successfully complete the Continuum of Sanctions Program. On September 8, 2020, the trial court found Jackson had again violated his Community Corrections placement in Cause 1811, in this instance by having multiple instances of unaccounted time and returning late, being under the influence, failing to pay fees, and committing the new offense of failure to return to lawful detention. As a sanction, the trial court revoked 916 days of Jackson's placement on Community Corrections and ordered him to serve that time in the DOC.

[6] In early 2022, Jackson was on probation, and his probation for both causes was transferred from Madison County to Grant County. On August 24, 2022, it was recommended that Jackson complete the Thinking for a Change program, and he was supposed to begin the program within thirty days. Between September 2022 and January 2023, Jackson failed to start the court-ordered Thinking for a Change program and missed multiple probation appointments. On January 31, 2023, the State filed a notice of violation of probation under Cause 1811, alleging that Jackson had failed to report timely to his probation appointments and failed to complete the Thinking for a Change program. After the initial hearing on this notice of violation, Jackson was ordered to report to the probation department but failed to timely report, and on March 2, 2023, the notice of probation violation was amended to add this failure to report as ordered.

[7] On September 20, 2023, Jackson's girlfriend, Jordan McWhirt (“McWhirt”), reported to police that Jackson had battered her and threatened to kill her. Jackson was arrested for domestic battery, intimidation, and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and a no-contact order was issued in favor of McWhirt. As a result of these new charges, the State amended its prior notice of probation violation to add a violation for failing to behave well in society by committing new offenses. The State also filed a violation of suspended sentence under Cause 1808 because of the filing of these new charges.

[8] While incarcerated for the new charges, Jackson violated the no-contact order by communicating with McWhirt hundreds of times through phone calls and text messages. Based on these communications, the State charged Jackson with Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. McWhirt was subpoenaed as a witness for Jackson's trial for offenses stemming from the events on September 20, 2023. When an officer tried to serve the subpoena, he was told McWhirt was not home, although her vehicle was observed in the driveway. Upon further review of the jail communications between Jackson and McWhirt, it was discovered that Jackson had instructed McWhirt to avoid being served with a subpoena for his trial, telling her to “lay low” and to rent a car and stay with a friend to avoid his trial. Tr. Vol. I p. 36. Other communications also reflected that Jackson had stated, “If old girl doesn't show up, they don't have a case. No witness, no trial.” Id. Based on these communications, the State additionally charged Jackson with Level 6 felony obstruction of justice. As a result of the new charges of invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice, the State twice amended its notice of violation of probation under Cause 1811 to add that he had failed to behave well in society by committing new offenses.

[9] An evidentiary hearing on Jackson's alleged violations under both Cause 1811 and Cause 1808 was held over two days on January 22 and February 5, 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Jackson had violated his probation in both Cause 1811 and Cause 1808. For Cause 1811, the trial court found violations for failing to timely report to probation, failing to complete the Thinking for a Change program, and failing to behave well in society by committing the new offenses of invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice. For Cause 1808, the trial court found violations for failing to behave well in society by committing the new offenses of invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice. The trial court revoked two years of probation in each cause, which constituted the balance of his previously suspended sentences, ordering Jackson to serve a total of four years in the DOC. Jackson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Jackson argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his entire previously suspended sentence in both causes. “Probation is a matter of grace left to the 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 these conditions are violated. Id. If a trial court determines that a person has violated a term or condition of probation within the probationary period, the court may impose one 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.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

[11] We review a trial court's selection of a sanction for an abuse of discretion. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[12] Jackson asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the entirety of his previously suspended sentence in both causes because many of his violations were merely technical in nature, and that although Jackson did have contact with McWhirt in violation of the no-contact order, the evidence supporting the underlying offenses for which the no-contact order was put in place was not credible. In other words, Jackson appears to argue that because the evidence supporting the crimes of domestic battery, intimidation, and possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon may not have been credible, such credibility problems call into question the validity of the no-contact order. However, all of the evidence presented confirmed that, at the time that Jackson engaged in hundreds of phone calls and text messages with McWhirt, there was a no-contact order in place that prohibited Jackson from having contact with McWhirt. His argument is thus not well taken.

[13] Instead, we find that the trial court's decision to revoke Jackson's probation and order him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence across both causes was well supported by the evidence presented. Over the course of his probation and time on Community Corrections, Jackson had a documented history of failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his alternative placements. Under Cause 1811, he initially violated his placement in Community Corrections by using illicit drugs, being disrespectful toward an officer, and receiving multiple reports for unaccounted time. Jackson was sanctioned for this behavior but allowed to return to Community Corrections. Within a few months, he violated the conditions of his placement again by engaging in the same type of behavior, having unaccounted time and unknown whereabouts on multiple occasions, returning late on multiple occasions, being under the influence, failing to pay fees, and committing the new criminal offense of Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention. As a result of these violations, Jackson was found to violate his Community Corrections placement and had 916 days of his placement revoked and ordered served in the DOC.

[14] However, Jackson continued his pattern of failing to follow the terms and conditions of his placement by missing multiple appointments with the probation department and failing to complete the Thinking for a Change program. These violations alone were sufficient to support the revocation of his probation under Cause 1811. See Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the defendant's probation after he failed to report to probation and complete court-ordered service work).

[15] Nevertheless, those were not Jackson's only violations of his probation. He also committed new criminal offenses—invasion of privacy and obstruction of justice—which were alleged violations under both Cause 1811 and Cause 1808. The allegations of new criminal offenses were not mere technical violations as alleged by Jackson and, instead, demonstrate how Jackson continued to engage in criminal behavior despite being given the grace of a suspended sentence and the ability to remain in an alternative placement even after violating the conditions of his placement on previous occasions. Further, although Jackson challenges McWhirt's credibility and questions the rationale for the no-contact order, he does not deny that there was an order in place prohibiting him from having contact with McWhirt. And the evidence revealed that he repeatedly had contact with McWhirt while the order was in place and additionally tried to interfere with the prosecution of the domestic battery case by instructing McWhirt to avoid service of the subpoena. Such actions further demonstrate Jackson's flouting of the terms and conditions of his probation. In short, Jackson repeatedly violated his probation imposed in both causes, and we conclude that the trial court was well within its discretion to order the revocation of the entirety of the previously suspended sentences.

[16] Affirmed.

Foley, Judge.

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