William I. Morris, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] The trial court found that William Morris violated the conditions of his probation. As a sanction, the trial court revoked Morris’ probation and ordered that he serve the suspended portion of his sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Morris appeals and argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by failing to offer him an opportunity to be heard regarding the appropriate sanction for his probation violation. The record does not support Morris’ argument. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Morris raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court violated his due process rights in sanctioning him for his probation violation.

Facts

[3] On August 1, 2023, Morris pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a Level 3 felony. The trial court sentenced Morris to nine years, with three years executed as a direct placement on home detention and six years suspended to probation. As a condition of his probation, Morris was required to follow the law.

[4] On January 5, 2024, Vincennes Police Department Officer Carter Creeden stopped a vehicle driven by Morris because the license plate was not registered to that vehicle. During the stop, Officer Creeden also learned that the vehicle was not insured. Officer Creeden then inventoried the vehicle in preparation for impoundment. In the center console, Officer Creeden discovered a glass pipe with “burned residue,” and, in other parts of the vehicle, he found a syringe and a scale. Tr. Vol. II p. 31. Testing of the glass pipe resulted in a “preliminary positive result” for methamphetamine. Id. at 34.

[5] The State charged Morris with unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony, and possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. On January 22, 2024, the State filed a notice of probation violation that alleged Morris violated the conditions of his probation by committing these new criminal offenses.

[6] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the probation violation allegation on February 29, 2024. Morris’ probation officer testified that she informed Morris that, as a condition of his probation, he was required to follow the law. Officer Creeden testified regarding the stop and search of Morris’ vehicle.

[7] Morris testified that the vehicle he was driving at the time of the stop was new to him; he had been driving it for approximately one week. He bought the vehicle in Monroe City but had “no idea” who sold it to him. Id. at 40. Morris claimed that he was not aware that the pipe, syringe, and scale were in the new vehicle. Morris’ wife also testified, and she claimed that the new vehicle had “all kinds of stuff all over it” when they purchased it, and neither she nor Morris “had a chance to clean out the vehicle yet.” Id. at 42. The trial court found that Morris violated the conditions of his probation.

[8] The State argued that the trial court should revoke Morris’ probation and order that he serve the suspended portion of his sentence in the DOC. Morris’ counsel argued that Morris was employed and supporting his wife and requested that the trial court place Morris on work release. The trial court revoked Morris’ probation and ordered that he serve the suspended portion of his sentence in the DOC. Morris now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Morris does not challenge the trial court's finding that he violated the conditions of his probation. Rather, Morris argues that the trial court “improperly revoked Morris’ home detention and probation sentence without first determining that revocation was appropriate and warranted under the circumstances” and that this error constitutes a due process violation. Appellant's Br. p. 6. The record does not support Morris’ argument.

[10] We review a trial court's determination regarding sanctions for probation violations for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). 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. Id.

[11] When a probation violation is alleged, the trial court engages in two functions. 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, which will require a determination of whether the defendant committed a new criminal offense.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[12] Discussing the due process rights applicable in probation revocation proceedings, this Court has explained:

Probation revocation implicates a defendant's liberty interest, which entitles him to some procedural due process. [Piper v. State, 770 N.E.2d 880, 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied] (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 482, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 2600-2601 (1972)). Because probation revocation does not deprive a defendant of his absolute liberty, but only his conditional liberty, he is not entitled to the full due process rights afforded a defendant in a criminal proceeding. Id.

The minimum requirements of due process include: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure to the probationer of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (f) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking probation. Id. (citing Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489, 92 S. Ct. at 2604).

Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98, 100-01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

[13] Morris argues that “the trial court moved directly from determining that a violation had occurred to revoking Morris’ home detention and probation and sentencing him” and that the trial court “ignore[d] the requirement that there be a finding that revocation of probation is warranted.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. Morris argues that this alleged error constitutes a due process violation and that he is entitled to “a new hearing in which evidence may be provided and considered” regarding the appropriate sanction for his probation violation. Id.

[14] The record does not support Morris’ argument. The trial court did not move directly from finding that Morris violated the conditions of his probation to revoking Morris’ probation. On the contrary, following the finding of a probation violation, the trial court invited the parties to offer argument regarding the “disposition” for Morris’ probation violation. Tr. Vol. II p. 44. Morris’ counsel argued that Morris was employed and supporting his wife and that the trial court should place him on home detention. After hearing both sides on the issue, the trial court determined that the appropriate sanction was to revoke Morris’ probation and order that he serve his suspended sentence in the DOC.

[15] Contrary to Morris’ argument, Morris was given an opportunity to be heard regarding the appropriate sanction for his probation violation. The trial court simply disagreed with Morris’ proposal. Morris’ due process rights were not violated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Morris.

Conclusion

[16] Morris’ due process rights were not violated, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Morris. Accordingly, we affirm.

[17] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Judges May and Brown concur. May, J., and Brown, J., concur.