VANWINKLE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Kristin Mariesue Vanwinkle appeals the trial court's revocation of her probation and subsequent two-year prison sentence. Vanwinkle contends the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed its sanction. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On August 11, 2021, the State charged Vanwinkle with Level 5 felony possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The charges stemmed from Vanwinkle's “intention to sell the [firearm] for her friend.” Tr. Vol. II p. 6.

[3] On February 15, 2022, pursuant to a plea agreement, Vanwinkle pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number. Remaining charges were dismissed and Vanwinkle was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, with one year executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and five years suspended to formal probation.

[4] Vanwinkle began her probation on May 9. Conditions included not consuming alcoholic beverages or illegal substances, completing a substance abuse evaluation, and complying with all treatment recommendations. On July 7, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Vanwinkle's probation, alleging a failed drug test. A warrant was issued and Vanwinkle was arrested later that month.

[5] At a September 14 hearing, Vanwinkle admitted to violating the terms of her probation. On September 17, the trial court revoked two and one-half years of her previously suspended sentence and ordered her to serve the time in the DOC.

[6] Vanwinkle was released from the DOC in August 2023 and returned to probation. In October, she completed an assessment at a mental health center; the center recommended treatment. In December, the center terminated Vanwinkle's services because she missed two appointments. Vanwinkle also missed an appointment with a psychiatrist.

[7] On February 13, 2024, the probation department filed a second petition to revoke Vanwinkle's probation—the one now before us—alleging a positive alcohol screen, failure to complete treatment recommendations, and failure to attend required mental health appointments. Another warrant was issued and Vanwinkle was again arrested. Vanwinkle admitted the violations on March 20.

[8] At a July 22 dispositional hearing, Vanwinkle's probation officer, Jennifer Benson, recommended that two years of Vanwinkle's suspended sentence be revoked and her probation terminated. Vanwinkle also addressed the court, asking to remain incarcerated until August so she could complete the “Matrix Program” she had begun while incarcerated. Tr. Vol. II p. 57. Under the program, Vanwinkle “learn[ed] about [her] addiction[,]” attended meetings twice per week and participated in group counseling sessions. Id. at 61. Vanwinkle asked the trial court to release her to in-home detention after she finished the program.

[9] The trial court followed Probation Officer Benson's recommendation. Van Winkle's probation was revoked and terminated, and she was ordered to serve two years of her remaining sentence in the DOC. Vanwinkle appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Vanwinkle deems her two-year sanction unduly harsh in the backdrop of her full-time employment and stable housing prior to incarceration and completion of the Matrix Program while incarcerated. Vanwinkle argues her “ongoing treatment and rehabilitation ․ could have been accomplished under the supervision of the community corrections department[,]” and “the severity of her conduct would not have been diminished by imposing such a sentence[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 9. Vanwinkle contends the trial court's two-year sanction was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.

[11] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) (2015) offers the trial court the following options when it finds a defendant has violated the terms of her probation: (1) “[c]ontinue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions[,]” (2) “[e]xtend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period[,]” or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.”

[12] We review a trial court's selection of a sanction for an abuse of discretion. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied (2020). An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[13] Here, conditions of Vanwinkle's probation included not consuming alcoholic beverages and complying with all treatment recommendations. Vanwinkle admitted she tested positive for alcohol and failed to complete her treatment recommendations. These violations were the second time Vanwinkle violated her probation. Throughout the entirety of her probationary terms, little time was actually spent in compliance with all conditions. Under these circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion to order Vanwinkle to serve two years of her previously suspended sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[14] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

[15] May, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.