WALSTON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] The trial court terminated Kassidee Walston's participation in a drug court program and ordered her to serve the sentence that was previously stayed pending her successful completion of the program. Walston appeals and claims that the trial court abused its discretion by terminating her from the drug court program. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Walston presents one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by terminating Walston's participation in the drug court program.

Facts

[3] On December 20, 2023, law enforcement officers were dispatched to investigate an overdose at a house in Decatur County. Inside the house, the officers found drug paraphernalia and fentanyl. Walston was at this house when the officers arrived. Accordingly, on December 21, 2023, the State charged Walston with visiting a common nuisance, a Class B misdemeanor.

[4] On March 14, 2024, Walston entered into an agreement with the State in which she agreed to plead guilty in the present case. She also admitted to violating the terms of her probation and community corrections placement in two prior cases. In exchange, the State agreed that Walston would participate in the drug court program and, if Walston successfully completed the drug court program, the charges in this and the two prior cases would be dismissed. The agreement also provided that, if Walston did not successfully complete the drug court program, she would serve an aggregate of 940 days in the prior cases and 180 days in the present case. The trial court accepted the agreement and placed Walston in the drug court program. As a condition of her participation in drug court, Walston was placed on home detention and received drug treatment at the Speranza House treatment facility.

[5] Over the next seven months, Walston committed fifteen violations of the conditions of her placement. Specifically, in June 2024, Walston committed a scheduling violation by taking a pass at the wrong time. She also was found with a forbidden second cell phone that she had hidden for over a month. The following month, she was sanctioned for not calling a hotline when scheduled, for making an unauthorized stop, for being terminated from her employment, and for taking an unauthorized pass. In August 2024, Walston was sanctioned for communicating with unauthorized persons in jail and for lying during her therapy sessions. As a result, the trial court ordered Walston to serve one day in jail.

[6] In September 2024, Walston committed additional violations: she left her treatment facility without authorization, again failed to call the hotline when scheduled, and was terminated from her therapy program. As a result of these violations, the trial court ordered Walston to serve one week in jail. Shortly after being released from jail, however, Walston committed another violation by taking an unauthorized leave from her treatment facility.

[7] Walston's violations continued in October. On October 3, 2024, she failed to attend a scheduled meeting with her probation officer and also made an unauthorized stop. For these violations, the trial court ordered Walston to complete eight hours of community service. On October 10, 2024, Walston again failed to call the hotline when required, and the trial court ordered her to complete more community service. Walston then recorded community service hours in areas that did not match her location as tracked by her ankle monitor.

[8] On October 17, 2024, the State filed a motion to terminate Walston's participation in the drug court program. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on October 31, 2024, and Walston admitted to the violations. Walston argued that she should be permitted to continue in the drug court program despite her numerous violations. The trial court disagreed and terminated Walston from the drug court program, noting:

In considering the sanction to impose, the number of violations, I think is the key, the number of violations that she has shows she's not ready to complete this program. I believe that her termination from participation [in] this program is the appropriate sanction.

Tr. Vol. II p. 28. The trial court then ordered Walston to serve 940 days in her prior cases and 180 days in the present case, with credit for time served. Walston now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Walston argues that the trial court abused its discretion by terminating her from the drug court program. “Drug Court is a forensic diversion program akin to community corrections and probation.” Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 665-66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). Accordingly, we review a trial court's sentencing decision for a drug court violation for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Id. (citing Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). A trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess witness credibility; instead, we consider only the evidence favorable to the trial court's decision. Puckett v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). So long as there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that the defendant violated any term of her placement, we will affirm the trial court's decision to revoke that placement. Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999)).

[10] “A drug court is a problem solving court.” Benitez v. State, 199 N.E.3d 811, 814 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citing Ind. Code § 33-23-16-11). “If a problem solving court finds that an individual participating in a program has violated a condition of the program, the problem solving court may ‘continue the individual's participation in the program’ or ‘terminate the individual's participation in the problem solving court program.’ ” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 33-23-16-14.5(e)). And when a trial court terminates a defendant's participation in a problem solving court, the court shall:

(1) enter a judgment of conviction against the individual;

(2) refer the individual's case back to the court that referred the case to the problem solving court to allow the referring court to enter a judgment of conviction against the individual; or

(3) otherwise dispose of the case.

Ind. Code § 33-23-16-14(b).

[11] Here, Walston makes no argument that the trial court was not statutorily authorized to terminate her from the drug court program and impose the previously stayed sentence. Instead, Walston claims that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so because she committed no new criminal offenses, only committed “technical” violations, did not harm anyone or any property, remained sober, and improved her coping skills. Appellant's Br. p. 12. Walston also notes that both her treatment sponsor and the director of the residential treatment program testified that they noticed a change in Walston, and the program was willing to re-admit her.

[12] While this may be true, it does not negate the sheer number of violations Walston committed. Walston admitted to committing fifteen rule violations while in the drug court program. Although some of these violations may have been minor, they demonstrate a lack of willingness to comply with the conditions of her participation. The trial court also imposed less severe sanctions upon Walston as a result of some of her violations, including jail time and community service. Still, Walston continued to violate the terms of her placement.

[13] Under these circumstances, the trial court's decision to terminate Walston's participation in the drug court program, and impose the sentence agreed upon in case of such termination, was not an abuse of the trial court's considerable discretion in such matters. See Benitez, 199 N.E.3d at 814 (affirming trial court's decision to terminate defendant's placement in drug court program based on seven violations committed in a short period of time).

Conclusion

[14] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by terminating Walston's placement in the drug court program. We, therefore, affirm the trial court.

[15] Affirmed.

Tavitas, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Brown, J., concur.