Rio G. Gonzalez, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Gonzalez repeatedly violated his probation by testing positive for THC and alcohol, failing to report for appointments, and committing new criminal offenses. As a result, the trial court revoked Gonzalez's probation and executed the remainder of his sentence. Gonzalez now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by executing the remainder of Gonzalez's suspended sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2017, Gonzalez pled guilty to attempted armed robbery as a Level 3 felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Gonzalez to ten years, with one year of incarceration and nine years suspended to probation. As part of the terms of his probation, Gonzalez agreed to not use illegal substances and alcohol, not commit new crimes, and report to probation as directed.

[4] In April 2018, the State filed a petition alleging Gonzalez had violated his probation by testing positive for THC; less than one month later, the State amended its petition, alleging Gonzalez had also violated his probation by testing positive for alcohol. Gonzalez admitted to the violations, and the trial court revoked 180 days of his previously suspended sentence, ordering him to serve it on home detention instead.

[5] In September 2021, the State filed a new petition alleging Gonzalez violated his probation by committing the offenses of possession of methamphetamine, possession of a syringe, and obstruction of justice, all of which are felonies. In April 2022, Gonzalez admitted to committing obstruction of justice, and the trial court revoked one year of his previously suspended sentence, ordering him to serve it on home detention again.

[6] In May 2022, the State filed a motion requesting modification of Gonzalez's placement, alleging Gonzalez violated the terms of his home detention by failing to take drug screens and testing positive for prohibited substances on multiple occasions. The trial court granted the State's motion and ordered Gonzalez to a long-term treatment facility for substance abuse. In February 2023, after a review hearing on Gonzalez's placement, the trial court ordered Gonzalez to return to home detention for 182 days.

[7] On March 20, 2024, the State filed a new petition alleging Gonzalez violated his probation by failing to report to a scheduled appointment on March 15 and failing to report thereafter. On April 30, the State amended its petition, alleging Gonzalez had violated his probation by committing two counts of burglary and one count of criminal mischief in Florida; he pled guilty to those charges in July 2023. Gonzalez missed his March 15 appointment with probation because he was still incarcerated in Florida at that time. On May 29, Gonzalez admitted to the violations, and the trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Executing the Remainder of Gonzalez's Suspended Sentence

[8] Gonzalez argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). We review a trial court's sentencing decision on a probation violation for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App 2005)). “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.’ ” Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). “We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Id. (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999)).

[9] Gonzalez contends that “his violation did not warrant a revocation of his entire suspended sentence and that evidence was presented that explains and mitigates his actions.” Appellant's Br. at 9. This argument is a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do, see Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551). For example, Gonzalez points to his experience being incarcerated in Florida, which he claims changed his outlook on life, as well as his progress toward achieving and maintaining sobriety. The trial court was free to give this evidence little if any weight, especially in comparison to Gonzalez's demonstrated history of committing felonies, failing to avoid substance abuse, and failing to comply with the terms of probation and home detention. Based on the foregoing, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Gonzalez to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision.

[10] Affirmed.

Felix, Judge.

Judges Pyle and Weissmann concur. Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.