GREEN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In October of 2023, George Green pled guilty to Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. Pursuant to the terms of Green's plea agreement, Green and the State agreed that he would be sentenced to a term of 910 days, with 824 days suspended to probation and credit for eighty-six days of time served. Green's probation was revoked on November 15, 2023, after he admitted to violating its terms. On August 5, 2024, the State filed a second petition to revoke Green's petition. After Green admitted to violating the terms of his probation a second time, the trial court revoked 550 days of Green's previously-suspended sentence. Green contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking 550 days of his previously-suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 31, 2023, the State charged Green with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe, Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On October 11, 2023, Green entered into a plea agreement, by the terms of which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony unlawful possession of a syringe. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. The parties agreed that Green would be sentenced to a term of 910 days, with 824 days suspended to probation and credit for eighty-six days of time served. The parties further agreed that Green would complete 100 hours of community service. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Green pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement.

[3] Pursuant to the terms of Green's probation, Green was prohibited from committing any crimes, violating any traffic laws, or leaving the State of Indiana without permission. He was also ordered, inter alia, to report to probation as scheduled, notify his probation officer of any change in residence, maintain lawful employment, and refrain from possessing firearms and from possessing or consuming any illegal drugs.

[4] On November 15, 2023, the State filed a petition alleging that Green had violated the terms of his probation. In this petition, the State alleged that Green had failed to attend four group therapy sessions that he had been ordered to attend as part of his probation and had moved without providing his new address to his probation officer. Green subsequently admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, after which the trial court revoked 180 days of Green's previously-suspended sentence. Upon his release from the Ripley County Jail on February 15, 2024, Green reported living at a residence in Moores Hill, Indiana.

[5] On August 5, 2024, the State filed a second petition alleging that Green had violated the terms of his probation. The State amended its petition on October 16, 2024. In the amended petition, the State alleged that Green had violated the terms of his probation in the following ways: (1) Green reported residing at a residence in Moores Hill since his release from jail on February 15, 2024, but had actually been residing in Bonneville, Kentucky; (2) Green had amassed four unexcused absences on his scheduled community-service obligation; and (3) in August of 2024, Green had been charged with and convicted of two counts of Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance in Kentucky. On October 23, 2024, Green admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation.

[6] After accepting Green's admission and finding that Green had violated the terms of his probation, the trial court stated the following:

this is Mr. Green's second violation. Hearing the evidence, the picture in this one is painted very clear. Mr. Green is not taking probation serious and honestly it's just becoming more of a headache for probation to track him down to get him to things, than it is to try to be able to monitor him and provide him with the services and rehabilitative nature that he needs. So, at this time, the Court finds that he is a poor candidate for probation. The Court is going to revoke five hundred and fifty days of his probation and terminate probation. We will give him credit for fourteen actual and that is twenty-eight with good time.

Tr. pp. 21–22.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Green acknowledges that he violated the terms of his probation but contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking 550 days of his previously-suspended sentence.

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If 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. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citations omitted).

[8] “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. A trial 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.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). Furthermore, while a probationer who admits to the allegations against him must still be given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation, see Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640, “in determining the appropriate sentence upon finding a probation violation, trial courts are not required to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Id.

[9] Green acknowledges that his violations were “for more than technical violations of the rules of probation.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. In arguing that the trial court abused its discretion, Green claims that he should have been granted leniency because he had “recognized he had messed up” and had taken responsibility for his conduct. Appellant's Br. p. 9. He also points to various facts which he claims demonstrate that he is of good character. For its part, the State points out, “[t]his was Green's second admission to having violated” the terms of his probation. Appellee's Br. p. 9.

[10] Green has shown a propensity for violating the terms of his probation. He twice admitted to providing the probation department with an inaccurate address, repeatedly failed to appear for scheduled appointments, and was charged with and convicted of two additional drug crimes. In revoking 550 days of Green's previously-suspended sentence, the trial court found that Green was not a good candidate for probation as his actions demonstrated that he had not taken his probation seriously. Based on the record before us, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in this regard.

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.