Tyler S. Bobay, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Tyler S. Bobay appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 16, 2023, the State charged Bobay in cause number 02D04-2302-F6-194 (“Cause No. 194”) with Count I, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony, and Count II, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor. On April 27, 2023, the court held a hearing at which Bobay pled guilty to Count I and the State dismissed Count II.

[3] On April 27, 2023, the court entered an order titled “Plea of Guilty and Sentencing” in which it accepted the plea agreement and found Bobay guilty of Count I. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 38 (capitalization omitted). The court ordered that Bobay “be committed to the Indiana Department of Correction[ ] for classification and confinement for a period of 2 years, provided, however, that said sentence of imprisonment be suspended and [Bobay] be placed on active adult probation for a period of 2 years, subject to the standard conditions of probation and special conditions of probation ․” Id. The order also stated: “Other requirements and recommendations: HOPE probation.” Id.

[4] On June 12, 2023, the court held an informal adjustment hearing in Cause No. 194. Ms. Irving ¹ stated that “[w]e're here this morning ․ to address the positive drug screen for methamphetamine collected on May 15th as well as admission to methamphetamine use on May 29th” and “this is Mr. Bobay's first violation of being on the HOPE program.” Transcript Volume II at 14. Bobay's counsel stated “it is his first violation” and asked “for an admonishment ․ and ․ that he remain on the program ․ and get into the treatment.” Id. When the court asked Bobay what was “going on,” Bobay answered:

Uh, well, when I got out I endured, uh, some kind of serious health problems, uh, that I had to immediately get taken care of. I had a severe case of carpal tunnel, um, and I was in a lot of pain. Um, also I was stressed when I got out. I had four (4) days to pack my belongings and get out of my house, uh, with my dog with nowhere to go. So, it was a little stressful and I just really couldn't handle it, so.

Id. at 14-15. The court allowed Bobay to stay in the program and returned him “back to Phase 1 ․ [s]o, you're starting from scratch.” Id. at 15.

[5] On June 29, 2023, the State filed an Amended Notice for Revocation of HOPE Probation alleging that Bobay did not maintain good behavior as “[s]ometime during the period of time between the 9th day of February 2022, and the 17th day of January 2023, [Bobay] allegedly committed the offense of Count I, Corrupt Business Influence, a Level 5 Felony, as referenced in the probable cause affidavit” in cause number 02D06-2306-F5-226 (“Cause No. 226”). Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 53. The State also alleged that Bobay did not report for scheduled urine drug screens on June 20, 22, 23, 26, and 27, 2023, and he did not report for a scheduled appointment on June 28, 2023.

[6] On October 20, 2023, the court held a change of plea and sentencing hearing in Cause No. 226. Bobay pled guilty to criminal conversion as a class A misdemeanor. That same day, the court entered an order in Cause No. 226 that accepted the plea agreement, found Bobay guilty of criminal conversion as a class A misdemeanor, and ordered him to “be committed to the Allen County Confinement Facility for a period of 1 YEAR, provided, however, that said sentence of imprisonment is suspended and [he] be placed on unsupervised probation for a period of 1 YEAR, subject to the standard conditions of probation and special conditions of probation ․” Id. at 143 (bold and underlining omitted).

[7] On October 23, 2023, the court held a hearing. The court asked, “Andrew, what brings Mr. Bobay here?” Transcript Volume II at 23. Mr. Davison ² answered:

Your Honor, Mr. Bobay is here today, he was, uh, recently sentenced in his new misdemeanor case, um, and he was given unsupervised probation or to pay restitution. We are recommending that if the Court chooses to do so we will continue supervising him on HOPE Probation. Uh, the previous cause number, we're just that, uh, the restitution be enforced in this case so that way we can make sure that that gets paid.

Id. The court allowed Bobay “to remain on HOPE Probation ․ with the condition you need to pay restitution in” Cause No. 226. Id. at 24.

[8] On November 6, 2023, the court held a hearing. Allen County Probation Officer Breanna Qureshi stated that “[w]e're here this morning because [Bobay] admitted to using methamphetamine on October 31, 2023.” Id. at 28. Bobay's counsel stated that Bobay was “acknowledging that he had this relapse, he's addressing it, and he wants to move forward in a positive fashion, which can be done without him having to go to jail.” Id. Bobay apologized and stated that he “did mess up,” he had “nowhere to go,” his phone was dead, and he did not “have really a lot of family here that can ․ be there to help me.” Id. at 29. He stated that he found a “safe environment to go to,” he was “supposed to start work on Wednesday,” and he could give “a clean drug screen right now.” Id. The court stated that Bobay was “going to remain on HOPE Probation with the following conditions: Community Control, halfway house placement, or at Residential Services.” Id. at 33.

[9] In January 2024, the State filed a Second Amended Motion for Revocation of HOPE Probation in Cause No. 194 alleging that: Bobay did not maintain good behavior because on January 17, 2024, he allegedly committed the offenses of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and refusal to identify self as a class C misdemeanor as referenced in the probable cause affidavit in cause number 49D25-2401-CM-1608 (“Cause No. 1608”); did not report for a scheduled hearing on November 20, 2023; failed to complete the Allen County Community Control Program; tested positive for methamphetamine on November 8, 2023; and did not report for a scheduled drug screen on November 17, 2023. That same month, the State also filed an Amended Verified Petition for Revocation of Probation in Cause No. 226 alleging that Bobay did not successfully complete supervision in Cause No. 194 and did not maintain good behavior by committing the offenses alleged in Cause No. 1608.

[10] On March 11, 2024, the court held a hearing. At the beginning of the hearing, the prosecutor referenced Cause Nos. 194 and 226. Bobay's counsel stated that Bobay “would like to admit in [Cause No. 194], the petition” and “the other case, the, uh, [Cause No. 226] is not a HOPE case, it is pending but he is not in violation of HOPE, we can address that simultaneously, it's a concurrent sentence so.” Id. at 37. With respect to Cause No. 226, Bobay admitted the allegations that he violated the conditions of probation by committing the offenses of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and refusal to identify as a class C misdemeanor as referenced in the probable cause affidavit in Cause No. 1608. With respect to Cause No. 194, Bobay admitted that he violated the conditions of HOPE probation by committing the offenses of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and refusal to identify as a class C misdemeanor as referenced in Cause No. 1608, failing to report for a scheduled hearing on November 20, 2023, failing to complete the Allen County Community Control Program, testing positive for methamphetamine on November 8, 2023, and failing to report for a scheduled drug screen on November 17, 2023. The court scheduled the matter for disposition on March 25.

[11] On March 25, 2024, the court held a revocation hearing. That same day, the court entered an order in Cause No. 194 ordering that Bobay be “committed to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of” two years and that the executed sentence be satisfied in the “Allen County Community Correction Home Detention Program and complete any and all recommended treatment.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 126. The order also provided that the sentence be served concurrent with Cause No. 226. Also, on March 25, 2024, the court entered an order in Cause No. 226 finding that Bobay admitted to the allegations, committing him “to the Indiana Department of Correction for a period of” one year, and ordering that the executed sentence be satisfied in the “Allen County Community Correction Home Detention Program and complete any and all recommended treatment.” Id. at 178. The court also ordered that the sentence be served concurrent with Cause No. 194.

[12] On April 5, 2024, the State filed a Verified Petition for Revocation of Placement of the Home Detention Program in Cause No. 194 alleging that on or about April 5, 2024, Bobay was terminated from “Park Center/Addictions Residential Program for failure to abide by treatment program rules” and, on March 25, 2024, Bobay “was ordered [to] complete any and all recommended treatment, therefore [he] has failed to successfully complete supervision with Allen County Community Corrections.” Id. at 132. That same day, the State filed a similar Verified Petition for Revocation of Placement of the Home Detention Program in Cause No. 226.

[13] On May 17, 2024, the court held a revocation hearing. At the beginning of the hearing the court referenced Cause Nos. 194 and 226 and stated: “Here on the Verified Petition for Revocation of Placement of the Home Detention program filed in each case.” Transcript Volume II at 48. The State presented the testimony of Allen County Community Corrections Case Manager Ciara Porter. She testified that, following a “jail screen,” Bobay “was recommended to 3.5 ARP[³ ] and then to follow it up with treatment at the halfway house and IOP classes.” Id. at 50-51. She indicated that Bobay went to the Park Center ARP program but he “was terminated from that program on April 5th due to ․ not following the rules there,” [h]e disregarded the basic unit rules per Park Center's progress report,” and “he declined his medication use, he ․ disagreed with the medication ․ recommendations, ․ and he challenged the rules there.” Id. at 51. She indicated that she filed the petition because he failed to complete treatment as he was ordered to do.

[14] After the State rested, Bobay presented the testimony of Anjenette Hasse, the clinical supervisor for the program at Parkview Park Center Addiction Residential. Hasse testified that Park Center discharged Bobay with certain recommendations including a halfway house. On cross-examination, Hasse indicated that Bobay was terminated from the program because he was having behavior issues, struggling with some of the rules, and struggling with “some of the ways that staff interacted with our residence [sic].” Id. at 65. She also indicated that Bobay did not successfully complete the ARP program.

[15] Bobay testified that he participated in the ARP inpatient program as best as he could but “was having difficulties” and acknowledged that he did not successfully complete the inpatient program. Id. at 68. He also indicated that Hasse communicated to him at some point that a better idea was for him to transition to a halfway house. He testified that an application for placement at Choices, a halfway house, was “currently pending this process.” Id. at 70. He also testified that he had been accepted into the Rise Recovery program, a halfway house facility.

[16] On cross-examination, Bobay acknowledged that he was placed on community corrections due to his “struggling with substance abuse” and that his substance abuse led to a number of informal adjustments and revocations while he was serving on HOPE Probation. Id. at 72. He admitted that he was ultimately revoked from HOPE Probation. He also indicated that Park Center evaluated him while he was in jail, their recommendation was “ARP 3.5,” and he did not successfully complete that recommendation. Id. at 73.

[17] The court stated that Bobay “focuses on the new and improved second recommendation from Park Center and [his] attempt at complying with that recommendation,” “the second recommendation occurred because the first recommendation was not working,” and “Park Center's testimony is that they don't recommend whether or not someone should be incarcerated, revoked from any program at all” and “[t]heir job is to present options ․ regardless.” Id. at 78. It also stated that “you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink,” “[w]e also can't have individuals who may not like or want to go to addictions residential and sit there and be obstinate and refuse to participate in hopes that you generate a different recommendation that would be more palatable under the circumstances,” Bobay “has struggled to engage appropriately in treatment, continually challenges and disregards basic unit rules,” “[w]hen redirected, he takes no personal responsibility, but attempts to engage in arguing about how the rules are wrong and how staff is being disrespectful by redirecting his own behavior,” and “[t]his has been addressed with multiple staff there and remains no change in his behavior.” Id. at 79.

[18] On May 17, 2024, the court entered an order in Cause Nos. 194 and 226 which found that Bobay violated the terms and conditions of home detention, ordered his placement revoked, ordered that he be “committed to the Indiana Department of Correction for two (2) years” in Cause No. 194 and be committed “to the Allen County Jail for one (1) year” in Cause No. 226, and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 30.

Discussion

[19] Bobay asserts that probation revocation is a two-step process with the first step being that the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation has occurred. He concedes that “the first step of the revocation process was likely satisfied.” Appellant's Brief at 8. He contends that the trial court ignored the second step and failed to determine if the violation warranted revocation. Without citation to the record, Bobay argues that Hasse specifically testified that, while there was a violation, there was a placement short of the Department of Correction that may have been more appropriate for him, specifically the halfway house arrangement.

[20] “Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is ‘a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'g denied (internal quotations and citations omitted)). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. 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. (citations omitted). Probation revocation is a two-step process. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Id. If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation. Id.

[21] The record reveals that, after Bobay pled guilty to unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony in Cause No. 194 on April 27, 2023, the court placed him on HOPE probation. In June 2023, Bobay's counsel admitted that Bobay had violated the conditions of the HOPE program, and the court allowed Bobay to remain in the program. In October 2023, Bobay pled guilty to criminal conversion as a class A misdemeanor in Cause No. 226, and the court placed him on probation. In Cause No. 194, the court allowed Bobay to remain on probation with the condition that he pay restitution in Cause No. 226. In November 2023, the court held a hearing because Bobay admitted to using methamphetamine on October 31, 2023, and the court allowed him to remain on HOPE probation with conditions. During a March 2024 revocation hearing, with respect to Cause No. 226, Bobay admitted the allegations that he violated the conditions of probation by committing the offenses of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and refusal to identify as a class C misdemeanor as referenced in the probable cause affidavit in Cause No. 1608. With respect to Cause No. 194, Bobay admitted that he violated the conditions of HOPE probation by committing the offenses of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and refusal to identify as a class C misdemeanor as referenced in Cause No. 1608, failing to report for a scheduled hearing on November 20, 2023, failing to complete the Allen County Community Control Program, testing positive for methamphetamine on November 8, 2023, and failing to report for a scheduled drug screen on November 17, 2023. The court entered orders in Cause Nos. 194 and 226 continuing Bobay on home detention. At the May 17, 2024 revocation hearing, Porter, the Allen County Community Corrections Case Manager, testified that Bobay “was terminated from that program on April 5th due to ․ not following the rules there,” [h]e disregarded the basic unit rules per Park Center's progress report,” and “he declined his medication use, he ․ disagreed with the medication ․ recommendations, ․ and he challenged the rules there.” Transcript Volume II at 51. In light of the trial court's comments detailing Bobay's struggles to engage in treatment, we cannot say that the trial court failed to determine if the violation warranted revocation. Based on the record, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bobay's probation and in ordering him to serve the remaining portions of his sentences at the Indiana Department of Correction and Allen County Jail.

[22] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[23] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The transcript does not identify Ms. Irving's first name or position.

2.   The transcript does not identify Mr. Davison's position.

3.   Porter testified that “ARP is a Park Center treatment service that is i[n]patient, typically lasts 28 to 30 days for a client.” Transcript Volume II at 49-50.

Brown, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur. Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.