PHILLIPS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Convicted in Indiana of three burglaries, Clayton Phillips was sentenced to a total of 20 years in prison with 131/212 years suspended to probation. Upon completing the executed portion of this sentence, Phillips was immediately transported to Illinois, where another burglary charge was pending. Phillips was convicted of this fourth burglary as well and sentenced to 41/212 years in prison. But when Phillips completed the Illinois sentence a few years later, he did not report to probation in Indiana as required. The Indiana trial court therefore revoked Phillips's probation and ordered him to serve the remaining 131/212 years of his sentence in prison. Phillips appeals this sanction as unduly harsh. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

Facts

[2] In 2015, the State charged Phillips with three counts of Level 4 felony burglary. Phillips pleaded guilty as charged in 2017, and the trial court sentenced him to a total of 20 years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). The court also ordered Phillips to complete the Purposeful Incarceration Program, which he did in late 2018. Phillips then petitioned for a sentence modification. The trial court granted Phillips's request and suspended to probation the remainder of his 20-year prison sentence—131/212 years. The court also ordered that Phillips serve his suspended sentence on work release.

[3] A week before his release from prison, Phillips received and signed a letter from DOC advising that he was being released to supervised probation and was required to report to the Knox County Probation Department. Phillips also received and signed “Release Reporting Instructions,” which advised that he was being released to probation and was required to report to Knox County Community Corrections. The instructions further noted that Phillips had an open warrant in Lawrence County, Illinois, and would be “PICKED UP” by the Lawrence County Sheriff's Department upon his release. Exhs. p. 8.

[4] In August 2019, DOC released Phillips to the custody of the Lawrence County Sheriff's Department, which transported him to Illinois. There, Phillips pleaded guilty to another burglary charge and was sentenced to 41/212 years in prison. Phillips began this sentence at an Illinois work camp but soon leveled down to a work release facility. And once the COVID-19 pandemic began, he was effectively granted early parole and allowed to live on his own while checking in with work release every three days. Phillips was officially granted parole in Illinois in August 2023.

[5] Upon his release from Illinois custody, Phillips did not report to probation in Indiana as required. The State therefore filed a notice of probation violation in October 2023. At a probation revocation hearing, Phillips admitted that he failed to report to probation in Indiana but claimed he was “confused” by the interjection of his Illinois prison sentence. Tr. Vol. II, p. 90. According to Phillips, he did not believe he still was required to report in Indiana because he had completed work release and parole in Illinois.

[6] The trial court was not persuaded. After finding that Phillips violated his probation by failing to report, the court revoked Phillips's probation and ordered him to serve the remaining 131/212 years of his 20-year prison sentence in DOC. Phillips appeals this sanction as unduly harsh.

Discussion and Decision

[7] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “Accordingly, we review a trial court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion.” Neidhamer v. State, 213 N.E.3d 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023). “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.

[8] Phillips claims the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a 131/212-year prison sentence as a sanction for Phillips's “reasonable” confusion about whether he was required to report to probation in Indiana. Appellant's Br., p. 12. The record, however, suggests that Phillips's purported confusion was not reasonable, as implied by the trial court's questioning:

How in the world would you think that serving a [41/212]-year sentence in Illinois might go ahead and take care of the [131/212] years you still had left to spend here [in Indiana]? Why would you think that [41/212] equals [131/212] in any way, shape or form?

***

[And e]ven if you thought that was a possibility, why in the world wouldn't you contact Knox County just to make sure?

Tr. Vol. II, p. 98.

[9] We echo the trial court's disbelief. We also emphasize that, before Phillips was released from DOC and transported to Illinois, he was advised in writing that he was being released to probation and was required to report to both the Knox County Probation Department and Knox County Community Corrections. Given these facts and circumstances, the trial court could have reasonably concluded that Phillips tried to take advantage of his transportation across state lines and the flexible procedures imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic to avoid serving probation in Indiana. We therefore find no abuse of discretion.

[10] Affirmed.

Weissmann, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.