Jared Joel Abramowitz, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jared Joel Abramowitz appeals the Madison Circuit Court's revocation of his placement in community corrections in two cases. Abramowitz raises the following issues for our review:

1. Whether the trial court's finding that Abramowitz violated the terms of his placement is supported by the evidence; and,

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Abramowitz to serve two years in the Department of Correction in one case followed by placement in community corrections.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On October 19, 2023, Abramowitz attempted to flee from his lawful detention in the Madison County Detention Center by following a kitchen worker out of an exit near the booking area. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 22-23. The kitchen worker noticed Abramowitz running toward the exit and closed the door before Abramowitz could successfully escape. Id. at 24. The next day, Abramowitz got into an altercation with one of the Detention Center officers. Id. at 45. While the officer attempted to place Abramowitz in restraints, Abramowitz bit his right arm. Id. The officer responded by attempting to use a taser on Abramowitz, but it was ineffective. Id. at 46. Abramowitz seized the taser and also attempted to use it on the officer. Id.

[4] On October 25, 2023, the State charged Abramowitz with Level 5 felony attempted escape under case number 48C04-2310-F5-3121 (“case No. F5-3121”). Id. at 21. On November 16, 2023, the State charged Abramowitz with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official and Level 5 felony disarming a law enforcement officer in case number 48C04-2311-F5-3303 (“case No. F5-3303”). Id. at 41.

[5] On January 18, 2024, Abramowitz pleaded guilty to all counts in both cases pursuant to a written plea agreement. Id. at 63-65. The agreement provided that he would serve consecutive terms of two years in Community of Sanctions, a community corrections program. Id.

[6] While placed in community corrections, Abramowitz tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine on two occasions in March 2024. Id. at 77. Abramowitz remained in the program despite committing those rule violations.

[7] On May 28, 2024, a Madison County Correctional Complex officer searched Abramowitz's person after he had refused to provide a urine sample and had admitted to using drugs. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 37. The officer conducting the search found a set of car keys. Id. at 30. After discovering the keys, the officer searched Abramowitz's vehicle and found a toolbox containing 10.1 grams of methamphetamine, a pipe with substance residue on it, and a scale. Id. at 31-33.

[8] Consequently, community corrections sanctioned Abramowitz to spend nine days at the Madison County Correctional Complex for submitting a positive urine screen on April 25, 2024, failing to produce a urine screen on May 28, 2024, possessing methamphetamine, possessing paraphernalia, failing to obtain employment, and failing to pay his program fees. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 76-77. Community corrections filed its notice of termination with the trial court on May 29, 2024. Id.

[9] On August 20, 2024, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Id. at 18. Thereafter, the court found that Abramowitz had violated his community corrections placement. Id. The court ordered Abramowitz to serve 111 days in the Madison County Detention Center under case F5-3121, which time he had already served on the date of the revocation hearing. In case F5-3303, the court ordered Abramowitz to serve two years in the Department of Correction, the entirety of the originally suspended sentence in that case. Id. at 18-19. Finally, the trial court also ordered Abramowitz to serve the balance of his original sentence in case F5-3121 in community corrections after he had completed his sentence in case F5-3303. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Abramowitz appeals the trial court's revocation of his placement in community corrections and order that he serve two years in the Department of Correction. As our Supreme Court has explained:

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law ․ Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.

Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (cleaned up); see also Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (stating that, “[f]or purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation”).

1. The State presented sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Abramowitz's placement in community corrections.

[11] Abramowitz first contends that the State did not present sufficient evidence to show that he violated the terms of his placement and to support the revocation of that placement. We review those decisions for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Under that review, “we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment—without regard to weight or credibility—and will affirm if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.’ ” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995)).

[12] One violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to support the revocation of that probation. Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). Further, when the alleged probation violation is the alleged commission of a new crime, the defendant's conviction for the new crime is not required. Richeson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 384, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), trans. denied. Instead, the State is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 617.

[13] Abramowitz argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he possessed the methamphetamine and paraphernalia found in his car, which were two of the six violations found by the trial court. Abramowitz does not challenge the other probation and community corrections violations he committed: testing positive for methamphetamine, failing to produce a drug screen, failing to obtain employment, and failing to pay a fee. Thus, the trial court could have properly revoked Abramowitz's placement even if it had only found the four unchallenged violations. See Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 622.

[14] But Abramowitz argues that, if he prevails on his argument, the remaining unchallenged violations are insignificant, and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence. For this reason, we address the merits of his claim.

[15] The State presented sufficient evidence to show that Abramowitz possessed the methamphetamine discovered in the vehicle. To prove that Abramowitz possessed methamphetamine as a Level 3 felony, the State was required to show that, without a valid prescription, Abramowitz knowingly or intentionally possessed methamphetamine. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1 (2024).

[16] Because Abramowitz's possession of the methamphetamine was not actual, the State had to prove that he constructively possessed the methamphetamine.

A person constructively possesses contraband when the person has (1) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the item, and (2) the intent to maintain dominion and control over it. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011).

“To prove capability, the State must show that the defendant is able to reduce the contraband to [his] personal possession.” K.F. v. State, 961 N.E.2d 501, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. To prove intent, the State must establish the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Id. When possession of the premises where the contraband is found is nonexclusive, the defendant's knowledge may not be inferred absent some additional circumstances indicating knowledge of the presence of the contraband and the ability to control it. Gaynor v. State, 914 N.E.2d 815, 819 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. “Among the recognized ‘additional circumstances’ are: (1) incriminating statements by the defendant; (2) attempted flight or furtive gestures; (3) a drug manufacturing setting; (4) proximity of the defendant to the contraband; (5) contraband is in plain view; and (6) location of the contraband is in close proximity to items owned by the defendant.” Id. at 819-20 (quoting Holmes v. State, 785 N.E.2d 658, 660-61 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)).

It is well-settled that “conviction for possessory offenses does not depend on the accused being ‘caught red-handed’ in the act by the police.” Wilburn v. State, 442 N.E.2d 1098, 1101 (Ind. 1982). Moreover, it is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citation omitted).

Smith v. State, 113 N.E.3d 1266, 1270 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied.

[17] Abramowitz acknowledges that the officers found the methamphetamine in a toolbox in his car. He argues, however, that the State did not present evidence that the toolbox belonged to him, and, therefore, it failed to establish that he intended to maintain dominion and control over the toolbox and its contents. We do not agree.

[18] The State presented evidence that Abramowitz had the keys to the vehicle. Citing only his self-serving statements to the contrary during the sentencing phase of his revocation hearing, Abramowitz asks us to reweigh facts regarding who used and owned the car, which we will not do. The State presented evidence that he had control over the vehicle, and that was sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that he had both the intent and capability necessary to constructively possess the methamphetamine and paraphernalia. See Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999).

2. The trial court's revocation of Abramowitz's placement was not an abuse of discretion.

[19] Abramowitz next contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his placement in case F5-3303 and ordered him to serve two years in the Department of Correction followed by serving the balance of his sentence in case F5-3121 in the community corrections program. A trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[20] Abramowitz's argument here is premised on his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. But, as we concluded above, the trial court properly found that Abramowitz violated the terms of his placement by possessing methamphetamine and paraphernalia in addition to the four unchallenged violations of his placement. Considering only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment, as we must, it is clear that Abramowitz did not comply with the conditions of his placement, which included verifying his employment, abstaining from drug use, and producing clean drug tests. Appellant's App. Vol. 2, pp. 66-67. The trial court therefore acted within its discretion when it revoked Abramowitz's placement and ordered him to serve two years in the Department of Correction in case F5-3303 followed by the balance of his two years in the community corrections program in case F5-3121.

Conclusion

[21] For all these reasons, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Abramowitz's probation and the court's sentencing decision.

[22] Affirmed.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Foley and Felix concur. Foley, J., and Felix, J., concur.