PHINEZY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Zondre C. Phinezy appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violation of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In May 2022, Phinezy pled guilty to Level 4 felony child molesting and Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. The next month, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years, fully suspended, with five years of probation. As a condition of probation, Phinezy was ordered to complete the Allen County Community Control Program, which included one year of electronic monitoring.

[3] One month later, Phinezy appeared for an informal adjustment for not completing the intake for the Community Control Program. The trial court gave Phinezy a one-week extension.

[4] In October, Phinezy was terminated from the Community Control Program for six missed drug screens and eleven GPS alerts for loitering. The probation department then petitioned to revoke Phinezy's probation for failing to complete the Community Control Program. Phinezy admitted to violating his probation, and the trial court ordered him to serve two years of his previously suspended sentence in prison followed by four years of probation. The court also ordered Phinezy, upon release from prison, to complete the Community Control Program either on home detention or at Allen County Community Control Residential Services.

[5] Phinezy was released from prison in September 2023. He was screened for the Community Control Program and declined housing at Residential Services, claiming he wanted to find housing himself. However, he did not do so. The next month, the probation department petitioned to revoke Phinezy's probation for not completing the intake. In December 2023, Phinezy admitted to violating his probation, and the trial court returned him to probation with the condition that he serve two years in the Community Control Program at Residential Services with electronic monitoring and “zero tolerance.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 129.

[6] Approximately six months later, in June 2024, the probation department petitioned to revoke Phinezy's probation for failing to complete the Community Control Program. At the hearing, evidence was presented that Phinezy, despite multiple warnings, had been returning to Residential Services after getting off work but waiting in his car for up to seventeen minutes before going inside the facility. Specifically, on June 1, Phinezy returned to Residential Services at 7:25 a.m. and at 7:35 a.m. was still sitting in his car in the parking lot. The trial court found that Phinezy violated the conditions of his probation and ordered him to serve the remaining four years of his previously suspended sentence (minus credit time) in prison. The court explained its sanction:

There is a reason you're [in the Community Control Program]. Number one, that's because it's something that you had agreed to as part of your plea. The reason those are in the pleas is because it's an increased level of supervision for people that have committed child molesting. We like to have a little bit more supervision at the beginning of community-based supervision. We also get a little nervous when sex offenders aren't where they're supposed to be ․ Which is why there's a strong focus on loitering when it comes to individuals with convictions such as yours. And in looking back in the history of this case, I see that back in 2022 we had problems with your community supervision whe[n] there were, apparently, at least eleven GPS alerts for loitering. So, this is not the first time in the history of this case we've had conversations with you about where you're supposed to be, when you're supposed to be there, and what you're doing. So, you know better.

Tr. p. 23.

[7] Phinezy now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Phinezy contends that “the sentence issued by the trial court was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the [offender]” under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Appellant's Br. p. 11. But Appellate Rule 7(B) does not apply to sanctions for probation violations. See Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 2008). Instead, we review for an abuse of discretion. Id.

[9] Even if Phinezy had properly argued abuse of discretion, we find none here. Phinezy has had problems with community-based supervision since first starting probation in 2022. He has had an informal adjustment, two probation violations, and a stint in prison for one of the violations. For the last violation, the trial court warned Phinezy that he was on “zero tolerance.” Phinezy, however, did not heed this warning or those from Residential Services about immediately going inside the facility upon returning from work. As the trial court explained, there is a strong emphasis on loitering for those convicted of child molesting. Given Phinezy's unwillingness to follow the rules and the chances he's already been given, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him to serve four years in prison.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.