CAMPBELL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ray Wayne Campbell, Jr., appeals the trial court's revocation of his previously suspended eight-year sentence following his conviction for child molesting, a Level 4 felony. Campbell claims that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the entire sentence because his drug use was only a minor violation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Between April and September 2016, nine-year-old M.C. lived in Plainfield with her father and paternal grandparents—Campbell and his wife, Debra. At various times during those months, M.C. would sit on Campbell's lap while he moved her “up and down and side-to-side.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 21. These incidents occurred in Campbell's bedroom when no one else was home.

[4] On some of those occasions, Campbell would pull up M.C.’s nightgown and “squeeze her butt.” Id. at 21. At other times, Campbell would lie on top of M.C. and M.C. felt that “something was being pushed into [her] body.” Id. at 21. M.C. did not want to engage in these activities, but Campbell refused to allow M.C. to get up when she tried to do so.

[5] In December 2016, M.C. sent a text to her legal guardian, Paul McClelland,¹ stating that “[Campbell laid] on top of her [and rubb[ed]] his stuff on hers.” Id. at 21-22. Thereafter, on April 4, 2017, M.C. and Campbell's adult daughter, A.P., were interviewed at Susie's Place,² where M.C. reported Campbell's sexual conduct. A.P. also told the interviewer that Campbell fondled her at various times from February 1993 through June 1997 when she was in grade school. A.P. stated that Campbell had her sit on his lap and would not permit her to leave. On other occasions, Campbell would touch A.P.’s vagina over her clothes, place his finger in her vagina, and “hump up” on her as she felt his penis touching her. Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 23. Campbell also had A.P. touch his penis over his clothing. Although A.P. told relatives about Campbell's conduct, they refused to believe her.

[6] On November 28, 2017, the State charged Campbell with Class A felony child molesting for his acts against A.P., and Level 4 felony child molesting for his acts against M.C. As the investigation continued, A.P.’s sister, S.C., reported to police in February 2018 that Campbell had also molested her when she was seven. S.C. stated that at times between May 1984 and May 1985, Campbell took her hand and placed it on his penis on the outside of his clothing. S.C. did not tell anyone about those episodes until she learned that A.P. and M.C. were involved in similar incidents with Campbell. The State then filed an additional count of child molesting, a Class C felony, against Campbell on July 10, 2018, for his acts against S.C.

[7] On October 4, 2018, Campbell and the State entered into a plea agreement, which provided that Campbell would plead guilty to Level 4 felony child molesting for his conduct against M.C. and agree to a twelve-year sentence to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), with four years executed and eight years suspended, in exchange for the dismissal of all remaining counts. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Campbell accordingly. As a condition of probation, Campbell agreed, among other things, not to violate any laws, and not to consume or possess any controlled substance. Campbell was also ordered to participate in a substance abuse program.

[8] On March 29, 2023, while on probation, Campbell operated a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI).³ The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke Campbell's probation, and although Campbell admitted the violation, the trial court continued his probation with no additional sanction. The trial court, however, ordered Campbell to complete another substance abuse evaluation and undergo treatment if recommended.

[9] On July 1, 2024, Campbell tested positive for cocaine. Thus, the State filed a petition to revoke Campbell's probation, and he subsequently admitted to the violation. At the sanctions hearing on August 15, Campbell testified that he has COPD and other medical conditions related to that disease. Campbell claimed that he had no idea what he had ingested and explained to the court that his brother, who has severe mesothelioma, “was taking this stuff to clear up his lungs and stuff, so [he gave] it a try and ․ didn't know it had illegal drugs in it.” Transcript Vol. II at 34.

[10] In addition to the testimony presented at the hearing, the trial court considered Campbell's pre-sentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI showed that Campbell—70 years old—initially entered the criminal justice system at the age of 28. Campbell's criminal history showed that he had accumulated three misdemeanor OWI convictions,⁴ along with another incident that involved the failure of a chemical test. The PSI further demonstrated that Campbell was previously sentenced to probation, home detention, and jail at various times. Campbell admitted to the PSI interviewer that he tried cocaine in his twenties and has used marijuana most of his life. Campbell also participated in court-ordered substance abuse treatment and outpatient programs and has prior probation violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Campbell's eight-year suspended sentence and ordered him to serve that time in the DOC.

[11] Campbell now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] 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). The decision to offer probation and the related conditions are matters for the trial court to determine. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). Similarly, probation revocation is within the discretion of the trial court, and we review only for abuse of discretion. Id. Such an abuse occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Id.

[13] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Trammell v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1212, 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). First, the State is required to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated the conditions of probation. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 615. Next, the trial court determines the sanction to impose for the violation. Trammell, 45 N.E.3d at 1215. The trial court may choose to continue probation with or without modification, extend probation, or order execution of all or part of the original sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). Probation violation sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied.

[14] In this case, the record shows that Campbell failed to comply with the required terms of probation, in that he operated a vehicle while intoxicated and thereafter tested positive for cocaine. Those violations are representative of Campbell's life-long involvement with the criminal justice system and his admitted history of illegal drug activity. Additionally, Campbell's most recent violation for ingesting cocaine demonstrates that prior rehabilitative efforts have failed. Campbell has previously participated in court-ordered substance abuse treatment and outpatient programs, but he has not rectified his substance abuse issues. And notwithstanding the trial court's order directing Campbell to participate in a substance abuse evaluation and recommended treatment following his first violation in this case, Campbell again violated the terms of his probation. These violations represent Campbell's continued disregard of court orders and his refusal to stop using drugs.

[15] Although Campbell maintains that we should find that he unknowingly consumed cocaine to “clear up his lungs,” Appellant's Brief at 7, the record reflects no evidence aside from Campbell's self-serving testimony—which the trial court was free to reject—that his consumption of cocaine related to his search for medical relief. See, e.g., Wood v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1054, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (holding that a factfinder is not required to believe a witness’ testimony even when it is uncontradicted), trans. denied. Campbell's contention in this regard is a request to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See, e.g., Mogg v. State, 918 N.E.2d 750, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (in determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, we do not reweigh the evidence and consider conflicting evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling).

[16] Here, Campbell's decades-long criminal history, his repeated probation violations and defiance of court orders, and his failed attempts at rehabilitation, support the trial court's sanction for the violation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Campbell's previously suspended eight-year sentence.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record states that McClelland and his wife, Loretta, are M.C.’s legal guardians because her biological “parents are drug users.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. II at 21-22. M.C. has lived “back and forth” with the Campbells and the McClellands “all her life.” Id. at 21.

2.   Susie's Place is a nonprofit child advocacy organization that assists child abuse victims.

3.   Campbell pled guilty to Class A misdemeanor OWI on September 28, 2023.

4.   The PSI did not include Campbell's September 28, 2023, OWI conviction.

Altice, Chief Judge.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.