ASHER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Haley Shenee Asher appeals the trial court's order that she serve her previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction following the revocation of her probation. Asher raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve her previously suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 9, 2023, Asher pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor theft pursuant to a written plea agreement. In exchange for her plea, the State agreed to dismiss two other charges and also agreed that Asher would serve 540 days with 518 of those days suspended to probation. The trial court accepted Asher's plea agreement and sentenced her accordingly. One condition of Asher's probation was for her to reside in Indiana unless approved otherwise by her probation officer.

[3] Thereafter, Asher met with her probation officer, Mitchell Burch, and requested that her probation be transferred to Ohio. Burch submitted the required paperwork to Ohio authorities on March 13, but Ohio denied the request. Burch resubmitted the paperwork in April, and Ohio again denied the request.

[4] Burch attempted to meet with Asher several times after the second transfer denial, but Asher's contact with Burch was “spotty.” Supp. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 8. On September 20, Asher informed Burch that “she was at a sober house in Ohio” and “wanted to transfer there.” Id. Burch informed Asher that she “needed to move back to the State of Indiana.” Id. Burch did not hear from Asher after that discussion.

[5] On October 12, the State filed its petition to revoke Asher's probation on the ground that Asher was living in Ohio without approval. The court held a hearing on the State's petition; Asher did not appear at that hearing, and the court found that she had violated the conditions of her probation and issued an arrest warrant.

[6] On February 9, 2024, Kentucky officers arrested Asher, and she was remanded into Indiana's custody. On April 7, the court held a sentencing hearing on Asher's probation violation. At that hearing, Asher testified that she had been living in Kentucky at the time of her arrest and had been delivering food orders via DoorDash even though she had a suspended driver's license. Following that hearing, the court ordered Asher to serve her previously suspended 518 days in the Department of Correction.

[7] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Asher appeals the trial court's order that she serve her previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. 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) (cleaned up).

[9] According to Asher, the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve her previously suspended sentence because she attempted to get her probation transferred to Ohio and she also was able “to do some check-ins” with Burch. Appellant's Br. at 10. Asher continues that she did not “fully abscond” but instead was “in contact with” Burch “for many months following her conviction.” Id. She also notes that she “completed her probation in Kentucky during this time.” Id. at 10-11.

[10] But Asher's arguments on appeal simply seek to have our Court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do, and we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in its chosen sanction. Asher did not communicate appropriately with Burch; she moved to Ohio and then to Kentucky without approval; she did not inform Burch at all that she had moved to Kentucky; and in Kentucky her employment consisted of driving vehicles with a suspended license. She also did not appear for her revocation hearing. The facts and circumstances before the court justify its sanction following the revocation of Asher's probation, and we therefore affirm the trial court's judgment.

[11] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

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