PLUMMER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph Plummer admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by testing positive for cocaine and cannabinoids. The trial court found that Plummer violated the conditions of his probation and ordered that Plummer serve four years of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction as a sanction for his probation violations. Plummer argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering this sanction. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Plummer raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that he serve four years of his previously suspended sentence as a sanction for his probation violations.

Facts

[3] On August 6, 2018, Plummer pleaded guilty to fraud on a financial institution, a Level 5 felony, and admitted to being an habitual offender. The trial court sentenced Plummer to a total sentence of ten years, with five years suspended to probation. In September 2020, Plummer was released from prison and began his probation. The conditions of Plummer's probation required, in part, that he not use illegal drugs.

[4] On September 10, 2021, the State filed a petition alleging that Plummer violated the conditions of his probation. The petition alleged that Plummer had four positive drug screens: one for cocaine on January 22, 2021; two for cannabinoids on March 29, 2021 and April 26, 2021; and one for benzodiazepines on August 31, 2021. The trial court issued an arrest warrant that same day; however, Plummer was not arrested until June 20, 2024, when he was pulled over for a traffic violation.

[5] The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on the probation violation petition on July 18, 2024. Plummer admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by testing positive for cocaine and cannabinoids but did not admit that he tested positive for benzodiazepines. Plummer also admitted that he knew a warrant was likely to be issued after he tested positive for the illegal drugs and that he “probably needed to just go to probation,” but he failed to contact his probation officer for the next three years. Tr. Vol. II p. 10.

[6] The trial court found that Plummer violated the conditions of his probation by testing positive for cocaine and cannabinoids. As a sanction, the trial court ordered Plummer to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence. The trial court based its decision on the fact that Plummer committed the first violation within only four months after Plummer was placed on probation, the fact that Plummer “absconded for a period of three (3) years” after the violations, and Plummer's criminal history. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 63. Plummer now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Plummer argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Plummer to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence as a sanction for his probation violations. We disagree.

[8] We review a trial court's sanction for probation violations under the abuse of discretion standard. 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.

[9] 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) governs such sanctions and 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.

[10] “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.

[11] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Plummer to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence as a sanction for his probation violations. Plummer committed the first violation by testing positive for cocaine within four months after his placement on probation. He then committed two more violations by testing positive for cannabinoids only months later. Significantly, although Plummer knew that his positive drug screens would likely result in a warrant for his arrest and that he should contact his probation officer, Plummer did not do so. An arrest warrant was issued, but Plummer was not apprehended until he was pulled over three years later for a traffic infraction. Additionally, Plummer has an extensive criminal history, including several drug related offenses and probation violations.

[12] Plummer argues that he was employed, helped to support his dependent child, and was honest with the trial court regarding his violations. Under the circumstances of this case, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. See Utley v. State, 167 N.E.3d 777, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (affirming order that required probationer to serve entirety of his suspended sentence based on the fact that probationer committed the violation within months of starting probation and probationer's extensive criminal history), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Plummer to serve four years of his previously suspended sentence as a sanction for his probation violations. Accordingly, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

May, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.