JACKSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Theodore Jackson appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violations of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2024, Jackson pled guilty to Level 6 felony domestic battery in the presence of a child. His plea agreement provided for the conviction to be entered as a Class A misdemeanor and for a sentence of “twelve (12) months in the Lake County Jail, all suspended to be served on probation.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 62.

[3] Over the next eight months, the State filed multiple petitions to revoke Jackson's probation. In October, the trial court found that Jackson violated the conditions of his probation by repeatedly using marijuana and alcohol and by failing to complete a substance-abuse program and an anger-management program. The court scheduled a dispositional hearing for the next week so Jackson could be evaluated for placement in community corrections.

[4] At the dispositional hearing, Jackson's attorney said the community-corrections evaluation hadn't been completed yet but that Jackson wanted to go forward with the hearing. The court invited the parties to make arguments about the appropriate sanction. The State asked the court to revoke Jackson's probation and to impose his entire suspended sentence of twelve months in jail, subject to his acceptance into community corrections. Jackson's attorney asked the court to give him a “second opportunity” on probation. Tr. p. 53. The court then let Jackson make a statement, and he asked to be returned to probation. After hearing from counsel and Jackson, the court adopted the State's proposal:

So I am going to sentence you according to your plea which was one year in the Lake County Jail on Count I. So you're sentenced to one year in the Lake County Jail with the condition if you are able to be accepted in the Lake County Community Corrections, you could be placed in Lake County Community Corrections.

Id. at 55.

[5] Jackson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Jackson contends the trial court erred by imposing his entire suspended sentence. He doesn't argue that the sanction is excessive. Rather, he asserts that the trial court erred by “failing to exercise its discretion” when determining the appropriate sanction. Appellant's Br. p. 7. Specifically, he contends that the court believed it had no choice but to impose the entire sentence called for by the plea agreement and that as a result it imposed that sentence without considering any lesser sanctions. If that were the case, we would have to remand. Our Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts always have discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, even when there is an agreement that purports to require a specific sanction. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640-41 (Ind. 2008).

[7] But we see no indication in the record that the trial court believed it was required to impose the full sentence called for by Jackson's plea agreement. First, the plea agreement didn't say that the court would have to impose the entire suspended sentence in the event of a probation violation. Second, the State didn't argue that the court was required to impose the entire suspended sentence. Third, the court never said that it was required to impose the entire suspended sentence. Fourth, the court repeatedly expressed its openness to Jackson serving his time on community corrections, which wasn't an option under the plea agreement. And fifth, the court invited counsel and Jackson to make arguments as to the appropriate sanction before it announced its decision. That invitation would have made little sense if the court believed it had no choice but to impose the entire suspended sentence.

[8] Jackson relies on Holsapple v. State, 148 N.E.3d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), but that case is distinguishable. There, we reversed the trial court's imposition of the full original sentence because the court had stated, based on the plea agreement, that it had “no discretion whatsoever” to impose a lesser sanction. Id. at 1038. The trial court here made no such statement. To the contrary, as we just noted, the court invited arguments as to the appropriate sanction.

[9] Jackson has not shown that the trial court mistakenly believed it was required to impose his entire suspended sentence. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision.

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.