MILLER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Sean D. Miller appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. Miller raises the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Miller to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2020, Miller broke into his ex-wife's residence and attempted to rape her. On April 7, 2021, Miller pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to Level 3 felony burglary and Level 6 felony sexual battery. The trial court accepted Miller's plea agreement and sentenced him in accordance with its terms, namely, to an aggregate term of ten years with six years executed and four years suspended to probation.¹ The terms of probation, which were included with Miller's plea agreement, included a no-contact order for his victim, one year of electronic monitoring, and mental-health treatment.

[4] On July 5, 2024, the State released Miller to his probationary term. At his probation orientation, Miller informed his probation officer, Andrew Davison, that he would not participate in probation. In particular, Miller stated that he “wasn't going to do probation, that he wasn't going to follow the rules, that the no[-]contact order ․ had already been dismissed[, and that] nobody was going to tell him what he could or couldn't do[ or] who he could or couldn't have contact with.” Tr. p. 6.² Davison told Miller to take a week to “calm down” and “rethink this.” Id. When Miller returned after that week, “he decided that he was still not wanting to do probation.” Id.

[5] Davison scheduled Miller for an informal adjustment hearing with the trial court. There, the court asked Miller “for clarification from him to make sure that [the court] understood that he did not want to do probation, and he confirmed ․ that he did not want to do probation.” Id. The court then ordered Miller remanded into custody.

[6] Thereafter, the State filed its petition to revoke Miller's probation. At an ensuing hearing, Davison testified for the State. Miller also testified and stated that he was willing to comply with the conditions of his probation.

[7] In its closing argument, the State noted that Miller “didn't want to do it, and now that he's sitting in jail ․ he's had a change of mind. This is prolonging the inevitable.” Id. at 17. The trial court agreed, revoked Miller's probation, and ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

[8] This appeal ensued.

Standard of Review

[9] Miller appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve his previously suspended sentence. As our Supreme Court has explained:

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 ․

Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.

Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (cleaned up).

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Miller's probation.

[10] Miller first contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation. Specifically, Miller asserts that he was simply “confused about the terms of his probation and was erroneously attempting to modify those terms with his probation officer instead of with the court.” Appellant's Br. at 10. He also notes that he did not act unlawfully prior to the revocation of his probation.

[11] Miller's argument on appeal seeks to have our Court reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Davison testified that Miller made clear that he would not comply with the conditions of his probation. Miller himself made that clear to the court at the informal adjustment hearing, and he did not frame his position then as merely seeking a modification. Further, the State's petition for revocation identified Miller's “refus[al] to comply” with the conditions of his probation as the basis for the petition, not unlawful behavior, and the State readily established its allegation at the revocation hearing. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 88. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Miller's probation.

2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Miller to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

[12] Miller next argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. Again, Miller asserts that he was simply seeking a modification and that he did not act unlawfully. He also notes that this was the State's first petition to revoke his probation, and he had not had the chance to engage in the mental-health services that were a condition of his probation.

[13] Miller's argument on this issue is also simply a request for our Court to reweigh the evidence, which, again, we will not do. Considering only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment, it is clear that Miller was not going to comply with the conditions of his probation, which included a no-contact order for the victim of his underlying offenses. It is also clear that the trial court did not believe his last-minute change of heart. The trial court therefore acted within its discretion when it ordered Miller to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

Conclusion

[14] For all of these reasons, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Miller's probation and its order that he serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   More specifically, the court entered ten years for Miller's Level 3 felony burglary conviction and a concurrent two years for his Level 6 felony sexual battery conviction.

2.   The first page of the transcript is not numbered. Our citations refer to the .pdf pagination.

Mathias, Judge.

Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.