TAYLOR II v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph D. Taylor, II, appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation. Taylor maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 14, 2019, the State charged Taylor with dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony, possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony, possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor, and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor. Thereafter, on January 6, 2020, Taylor and the State entered into a plea agreement, which provided that Taylor would plead guilty to the methamphetamine charges in exchange for dismissal of all remaining counts. The trial court accepted the agreement and on April 6, 2020, Taylor was sentenced to ten years executed at the DOC on the dealing count and two years executed on the possession count, with the sentences to run concurrently.

[4] At some point, Taylor filed a motion for sentence modification after completing a substance abuse recovery program while incarcerated. Following an April 6, 2022 hearing on that motion, the trial court modified Taylor's sentence on the methamphetamine dealing count to 3240 days executed and 360 days suspended to probation.

[5] Taylor was released from incarceration and began probation on April 4, 2024. Taylor agreed to various conditions of probation upon his release that included requirements that he meet with his probation officer, advise the probation department of any address change, complete all recommended programs, and not consume alcohol or possess illegal controlled substances.

[6] On September 25, the State filed a petition to revoke Taylor's probation, alleging that Taylor had tested positive for methamphetamine on May 30, failed to complete an intensive outpatient program, did not attend a scheduled meeting with his probation officer, and failed to report a change in his contact information. Following a hearing on December 4, the trial court found that Taylor committed all of the alleged violations, revoked 180 days of his previously suspended sentence, and ordered him to serve that time at the DOC.

[7] Taylor now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] 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.

[9] 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. Although probation may be revoked on evidence of violation of a single condition, the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend on the severity of the violation. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[10] Here, while Taylor acknowledges that he violated probation, he maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to continue his probation with no additional sanctions. The record demonstrates that less than two months after release to probation, Taylor tested positive for methamphetamine. Taylor also failed to successfully address his substance abuse issues, in that he did not complete a court-ordered treatment plan. Additionally, Taylor did not appear for a scheduled meeting with his probation officer, and he failed to apprise the probation department of a new address.

[11] These violations—including some of which were tied to the offense for which Taylor was incarcerated—demonstrate a defiance of court orders and Taylor's refusal to stop using drugs. Under these circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion to revoke Taylor's probation and order him to serve a portion of his previously suspended sentence. See, e.g., Comer v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1266, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (observing that the consideration and imposition of any alternatives to incarceration are matters of grace left to the discretion of the trial court), trans. denied.

Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Chief Judge.

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