Matthew K. Nickell, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Matthew K. Nickell appeals the revocation of his probation and sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 16, 2023, Nickell pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture for life as a level 5 felony. On July 28, 2023, the court sentenced Nickell to 1,080 days with seven days executed in the Decatur County Jail and 1,073 days suspended to probation. The Order for Probation required Nickell to report to his probation officer as directed, not commit any criminal act, refrain from possessing or consuming any illegal controlled substances, and notify his probation officer of any address change within twenty-four hours.

[3] On March 11, 2024, the State filed a Petition for Revocation of Probation alleging that Nickell provided urine samples on December 21, 2023, January 25, 2024, and February 21, 2024, that “indicated positive results for Methamphetamine,” and that Nickell admitted to using methamphetamine. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 41. The State asserted that Nickell was “still an active patient at Centerstone” and that “Centerstone reports recent attendance issues ․” Id.

[4] On May 3, 2024, the State filed a Supplemental Petition for Revocation of Probation alleging that Nickell failed to report for a scheduled probation meeting on April 2, 2024, he failed to notify Decatur County Probation within twenty-four hours of an address change, and his “current whereabouts are unknown.” Id. at 54.

[5] On May 30, 2024, the court held an initial hearing at which Nickell appeared pro se. Nickell stated that he was in rehab and was attempting to “get with a men's rehab, a men's rehabilitation association to get into the second rehab program,” and “I've got to call back, but if you'll come pick me up on Monday, I'll go and do another 30-day stay at another rehab facility to try to take care of my disease I've got.” Transcript Volume II at 7. The court entered a preliminary denial of the allegations on Nickell's behalf, appointed counsel for him, and scheduled a factfinding hearing for July 25, 2024.

[6] On July 25, 2024, Nickell filed a Motion to Continue and alleged that he had checked into a rehabilitation program on July 24, 2024, and, “[a]s part of an initial 72-hour detox period, [he] is unable to attend the aforementioned hearing.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 67. Later that day, the court held a hearing at which it indicated that it would issue an arrest warrant due to Nickell's failure to appear. On July 26, 2024, the court issued a warrant for Nickell's arrest. On September 8, 2024, law enforcement arrested Nickell pursuant to the warrant.

[7] On October 24, 2024, the court held a factfinding hearing. Nickell admitted that he tested positive for methamphetamine on December 21, 2023, January 25, 2024, and February 21, 2024, failed to report to probation in April 2024 and made no effort to reschedule that meeting, and failed to notify probation within twenty-four hours of a change of his address.

[8] Decatur County Probation Officer Eric Adkins testified that Nickell tested positive for methamphetamine multiple times. He stated that Nickell “bonded out on June 7th of 2024,” “[o]n July 24th he left me a voicemail that was hard to understand, something about rehab for 90 days,” and “that's the only contact I've had.” Transcript Volume II at 20-21. When asked if he considered Nickell to be a good candidate for continued supervision, he answered, “I do not, no.” Id. at 21.

[9] Nickell testified that he reported to Recovery Works in Cambridge City, Indiana, on July 24, 2024. When asked what kind of programming he was engaged in at that time, he answered:

[I]t was a 28-day program, but at the time when I went in I was supposed to go to court, so they issued a warrant. And I was trying to do the transitional living, and I would pee afterward, but they wouldn't accept me because I had the warrant, and I had to get that cleared up. But I was trying to proceed further with the transitional living which was another 28 day program and then the IP – IOP was a six month program.

Id. at 24. He also stated that, if he were released, his goal would be to check in to Recovery Works again “and then the further on the transitional living and then the six-month IOP program.” Id. He stated that he had been an addict for over ten years and was “so sick of being an addict.” Id. at 25. He apologized for missing the court date and stated, “but I thought it was more important for me to get the help I needed and get that taken care of than coming here and – and just acting like I don't care about my problem when I know I have a problem, and I need the help.” Id. He also indicated that he “turned [himself] in in Batesville on the warrant and they brought [him] to Decatur County.” Id. at 26.

[10] On cross-examination, Nickell indicated that he was discharged from treatment on August 22, 2024, but was not arrested until September 8, 2024. He acknowledged that he was discharged from recovery for roughly “three weeks” and that “for three weeks” he knew about the warrant status “and did nothing about it.” Id. at 27.

[11] The court stated:

I accept his admission in being in violation of the conditions of his probation. And based on that admission, finding him to be in violation. But considering those violations that he has admitted to, and also the fact that the failure to appear in this case, he had admitted knowingly failed to appear, and was part of it was so that he could go to Recovery Works on his own, but then after being discharged from that still, didn't surrender himself for a period of time.

I don't think he's a good candidate for further supervision by the probation department at this time. I think he could be at some point, but not right now.

I'm going to order that of his 1073 on Count I, they were suspended to probation, I'm going to revoke 810 of those days to the Indiana Department of Correction. I'm going to recommend his placement in the recovery while incarcerated program. Upon successful completion of recovery while incarcerated, I will consider sentence modification at that time. Probation terminates as being unsuccessful.

Id. at 29. That same day, the court entered an order revoking Nickell's probation, requiring him to serve 810 days as an executed commitment to the Department of Correction (“DOC”), and stating that, “[u]pon successful completion of the clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by IDOC, the court will consider a modification to this sentence.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 73.

Discussion

[12] Nickell asserts that he has already taken significant strides toward long-term sobriety and that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking 810 days of his previously suspended sentence.

[13] Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) 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.

[14] We review trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed” and that, “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. When reviewing an appeal from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[15] The record reveals that, after being sentenced in July 2023, Nickell tested positive for methamphetamine in December 2023 and January and February 2024. He failed to report for a scheduled probation meeting in April 2024 and failed to notify Decatur County Probation within twenty-four hours of an address change. Nickell was also aware of the arrest warrant for approximately seventeen days before turning himself in to authorities. In light of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Nickell serve 810 days of his suspended sentence and indicating that it would consider a modification to the sentence after Nickell completed an appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the DOC.

[16] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[17] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

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