Michael Ray Stakelin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Michael Ray Stakelin (“Stakelin”) appeals the revocation of his probation. Specifically, although he acknowledges that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, Stakelin argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 500 days of his previously suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Stakelin to serve 500 days of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

Facts

[3] In April 2024, fifty-six-year-old Stakelin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Level 6 felony possession of a legend drug or precursor and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court sentenced Stakelin, pursuant to his plea agreement, to an aggregate term of 557 days in the county jail with 545 days suspended to probation.

[4] In May 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Stakelin's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Stakelin had failed to report to probation intake appointments on April 23, 2024 and May 10, 2024 and had failed to contact or report to the probation department after May 13, 2024.

[5] During an August 2024 hearing, Stakelin admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. According to Stakelin, he had failed to both report to the intake appointments and to contact or report to the probation department because he had been suffering from a chronic health condition.

[6] At the end of the hearing, Stakelin asked the trial court to place him back on probation. However, the trial court noted that this case was Stakelin's twentieth criminal case in Jefferson County and that, in the past, his probation had been revoked multiple times. The trial court further noted that the primary allegations in past petitions to revoke Stakelin's probation had been the failure to report to the probation department. According to the trial court, Stakelin “kn[ew] what his obligations [were] on probation.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18). Thereafter, the trial court ordered Stakelin to serve 500 days of his previously suspended sentence.

Stakelin now appeals.

Decision

[7] Stakelin argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 500 days of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We disagree.

[8] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Once a trial court has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial courts might be less inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decision for a probation violation is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person has violated his probation before termination of the probationary period, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing. IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

[9] Here, Stakelin, who was on probation for convictions for Level 6 felony possession of a legend drug or precursor and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court noted that this case was Stakelin's twentieth case in Jefferson County, that his probation had been revoked multiple times in the past, and that he knew what his obligations were when he was on probation. Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered Stakelin to serve 500 days of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur. Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.