Ramsey Joseph Meinzer, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Ramsey Joseph Meinzer (“Meinzer”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation. He raises one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 600 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) as a sanction for violating his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 7, 2021, the State charged Meinzer with several offenses after driving erratically and finding cocaine in his vehicle.¹ The following month, Meinzer failed to appear for a pretrial hearing, resulting in the issuance of a bench warrant, and an additional charge for failure to appear. Meinzer and the State eventually reached a plea agreement whereby Meinzer would plead guilty to two offenses—Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated—and all other charges would be dismissed. The plea agreement called for a fixed sentence of 910 days executed, with 896 days suspended to probation. On July 20, 2022, the trial court accepted the plea agreement, dismissed the remaining charges, and sentenced Meinzer in accordance with the agreement.

[3] On February 29, 2024, the State filed a petition for a probation violation, alleging Meinzer violated a term of his probation by committing additional criminal offenses. The State specifically alleged that on February 26, 2024, in Dearborn County, Meinzer was convicted and sentenced for Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication, after he was found unresponsive behind the wheel of his car at a gas station fuel pump and revived by Narcan. The Dearborn County court sentenced Meinzer to a term of home detention. On March 6, 2024, Meinzer admitted to violating his probation, and the trial court imposed a 600-day executed sentence to the DOC but stayed the sentence “pending successful completion of home detention in [the Dearborn County case] with no violations and this sentence may be purged.” Appellant's App. p. 72.

[4] On May 20, 2024, the State filed a second petition for a probation violation alleging that Meinzer violated a term of his probation by testing positive for cocaine and norfentanyl.

[5] On August 7, 2024, Meinzer admitted to the second violation. During the hearing, Meinzer did not challenge the imposition of the 600-day sentence but requested placement on community corrections rather than incarceration. In support of his request, Meinzer stated that he has “great support,” his girlfriend “drives [him] everywhere” due to his license being suspended, and “[he] had a failed drug screen in April and ․ apologize[s] for that.” Tr. Vol. 1 p. 32. Meinzer also highlighted that he has “great help” and that he has been “in counseling.” Id. Furthermore, Meinzer noted that he has “two weeks left on [his] home detention” in the Dearborn County case, at which point he “will graduate from that and then the only thing [he] ha[s] left on [his] record is to finish probation here in Ripley County and [he] will be clear everywhere else.” Id.

[6] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated that it “appreciate[d] the steps that [Meinzer] ha[d] taken,” but noted that it had “already provided him the grace [previously.]” Id. at 40. Ultimately, the trial court ordered that the previously suspended sentence of 600 days be served in the DOC. Meinzer now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Meinzer does not dispute that he violated a condition of his probation. See Appellant's Br. p. 8. Rather, Meinzer argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his 600-day sentence in the DOC, rather than on community corrections, as requested.

[8] Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h), if the trial court determines that a person violated a condition of probation, the court may impose one 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.

[9] As to the imposition of a sanction, our Supreme Court has explained that, because “[p]robation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled,” trial courts should have “considerable leeway” in deciding how to proceed when facing a violation of probation. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (noting that “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and [their decisions] were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.”) “In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (citing Guillen v. State, 829 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)).

[10] Meinzer argues that a community corrections placement would “afford[ ] him the opportunity to continue with his rehabilitation and to improve his life.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. As we have previously explained: “[b]oth probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the DOC, and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court. A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program.” Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

[11] The trial court's decision to impose an executed sentence at the DOC, rather than his requested placement in community corrections, is supported by the record. Meinzer violated his probation on two separate occasions. After Meinzer's first violation, the trial court afforded Meinzer grace by staying the imposition of his 600-day sentence and allowing him to complete the home detention sentence in Dearborn County. The trial court stated that it would stay Meinzer's sentence “pending successful completion of home detention sentence ․ with no violations” and further stated the 600-day sanction “may be purged.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 72. Approximately a month and a half later, Meinzer again violated his probation by testing positive for cocaine and norfentanyl. The trial court considered Meinzer's request for placement in community corrections and acknowledged his recent efforts, but ultimately determined that an executed sentence was the most appropriate sanction. As we have previously explained: “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)), trans. denied. Based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.

[12] The trial court's decision to place Meinzer in the DOC instead of community corrections was not an abuse of discretion.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State charged Meinzer with Count I: possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 6 felony; Count II: obstruction of justice, a Level 6 felony; Count III: operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor; and Count IV: possession of paraphernalia, a Class C misdemeanor. Later that day, the State filed a motion to file Count V: driving while suspended – prior, a Class A misdemeanor.

Foley, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Bradford concur. Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.