PIERCE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Mary Pierce appeals the revocation of her probation, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting her positive drug screen results into evidence at the revocation hearing. Pierce further maintains that it was error to revoke her probation on the grounds that she failed to pay probation user's fees.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 25, 2017, the State charged Pierce with two counts of dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 3 felony, and two counts of possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. Thereafter, on August 9, 2018, the parties entered into a plea agreement providing that Pierce would plead guilty to one count of dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 3 felony, with a cap of eight years on the executed portion of the sentence. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.

[4] The trial court accepted the agreement and sentenced Pierce to seven years of incarceration followed by two years suspended to probation to be served as follows:

[Pierce] shall begin sentence on Aug 9, 2018. Serve first 4 years on PACT Day Reporting; The next 3 years to be served at IDOC; [Pierce] may petition for a modification of her sentence to allow an alternative from IDOC; Probation for 2 years; [Pierce] to pay all court cost and fees; Court recommends purposeful incarceration.

[5] Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 10.

[6] On April 20, 2021, the State filed a motion to revoke Pierce's placement in the day reporting program based on positive drug test results. Pierce admitted to the violation, and on April 13, 2022, a hearing on the violation was held, at which time the parties entered an agreed order that required Pierce to serve the remainder of her sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Pierce would also be recommended for a “recovery while incarcerated” program that would entitle her to a sentence modification hearing upon completion of that program. Id. at 182, 186, 215.

[7] On March 27, 2023, the DOC provided notice that Pierce successfully completed the recovery program. Thus, on April 6, Pierce filed a motion to modify her sentence. Following a hearing, the trial court modified Pierce's sentence and ordered her to serve the remaining 706 days of her sentence on probation.

[8] Pierce and her probation officer signed a “special terms and conditions” of probation document on June 8, 2023, that included requirements that Pierce make monthly payments of $43.00 for “fines, fees and costs,” not consume any unprescribed drugs, and submit to drug testing on demand. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 202-03. Pierce also expressly agreed to waive objection to the admission of drug test results “at any revocation hearing.” Id. at 203.

[9] On April 5, 2024, Pierce submitted to a random drug screen that yielded positive results for amphetamine and methamphetamine. It was further determined that Pierce had made only two probation user fee payments in the amounts of $10.00 and $20.00 during her probationary term, thus establishing an outstanding balance of $2,030.

[10] On April 16, 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Pierce's probation, alleging Pierce's failed drug test and her lack of payment of probation user's fees and costs as the bases for the revocation. At the revocation hearing on September 11, the State sought to admit the results of Pierce's April 5 drug test through the testimony of probation officer Melanie Kuntz. Kuntz testified that the drug screen was administered when Crawford County was supervising Pierce's probation, and the results were collected by Chief Probation Officer Jim Grizzle of that county, who then provided them to her. Kuntz further testified that a different document established the drug screen's chain of custody. Over Pierce's objection to the admissibility of the test on the grounds of hearsay and lack of reliability, the trial court allowed the results into evidence. Pierce also testified at the hearing and admitted that she made only the two payments as alleged.

[11] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Pierce's probation in light of both violations and ordered her to serve one year in the home incarceration program as an additional condition of probation.

[12] Pierce now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Pierce argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the drug test results into evidence at the revocation hearing. Specifically, Pierce maintains that the results were improperly admitted because “there was no substantial indicia of reliability for the ․ results.” Appellant's Brief at 7.

[14] In general, trial courts have broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility of the evidence at a probation revocation hearing, and we will not disturb its decision absent an abuse of discretion. Terpstra v. State, 138 N.E.3d 278, 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Guffey v. State, 42 N.E.3d 152, 159 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. The Indiana Rules of Evidence typically do not apply to probation revocation proceedings. Terpstra, 138 N.E.3d at 287. Judges presiding over such proceedings “may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999).

[15] As for Pierce's claim that the revocation order must be set aside because the test results were improperly admitted at the hearing, we note that participants in diversion programs in lieu of incarceration typically sign agreements with the county probation department “forego[ing] many of [their] rights.” State v. Ellis, 167 N.E.3d 285, 286 (Ind. 2021). Indeed, probationers can waive rights that they would otherwise have in exchange for the privilege of engaging in a program that permits them to avoid incarceration. See id. at 288-89 (a contract that the probationer signed when he was placed on home detention waived his right against searches without reasonable suspicion); see also Perry v. State, 13 N.E.3d 909, 912-3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (observing that a drug-court participant “receives considerable benefits, in return for which he gives up a plethora of substantive claims and procedural rights”).

[16] Here, the record demonstrates that Pierce signed an agreement with the probation department as part of the special terms and conditions of her probation, waiving her right to “object to the admissibility of the results of [drug/alcohol] tests ․ at any revocation hearing.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 203. This language was clear and unambiguous. Moreover, Pierce acknowledged in the agreement that “she read the conditions of probation ․ or had them read to [her].” Id. Pierce further acknowledged that she had “discussed any questions [she had], [understood] all the conditions and [agreed] to comply with each of them.” Id. Because Pierce waived her right to challenge the admissibility of drug test results at the revocation hearing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting those results. Thus, we affirm Pierce's probation revocation.

[17] Judgment affirmed.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because the evidence of Pierce's failed drug test was sufficient to support the revocation of her probation, we need not address the issue of whether the trial court erred in finding that Pierce violated probation for the nonpayment of probation user's fees. See, e.g., Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding that proof of any one violation is sufficient to revoke a defendant's probation).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.