LEWIS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brady Lewis appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended prison sentence. Lewis 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 February 5, 2020, the State charged Lewis with Level 5 felony escape. The charge stemmed from Lewis fleeing from law enforcement following his arrest on a felony warrant issued in a different case.

[3] Pursuant to a written plea agreement, on August 21, 2020, Lewis pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony escape. Lewis was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, with three years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and three years suspended to probation. On February 9, 2022, following his successful completion of the Recovery While Incarcerated (RWI) program, the trial court amended Lewis’ sentence, suspending an additional forty-eight days to probation.

[4] Lewis began his probation on February 24. Conditions of his probation included not consuming alcoholic beverages or illegal controlled substances. On December 12, the probation department filed a request for a probation violation hearing, alleging Lewis tested positive for marijuana on December 1. A warrant was issued, and Lewis was arrested later that month.

[5] At a probation violation hearing on February 27, 2023, the trial court revoked eighty-four days of Lewis’ suspended sentence, which Lewis had served awaiting the hearing. Lewis and the State entered into a plea agreement wherein Lewis admitted the probation violation and agreed to participate in the Southeast Indiana Veteran's Treatment Court (SEIVTC) as a new condition of his probation. The court accepted the plea and returned Lewis to probation for the remaining 1,059 days of his suspended sentence.

[6] During his participation in SEIVTC, Lewis was sanctioned four times: once for testing positive for marijuana; once for having a dilute drug screen; and twice for drug screens that “came back as not consistent with normal urine and [were] considered substitution[s]” for “normal human urine.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 28-29. Ultimately, Lewis graduated from SEIVTC on May 28, 2024. The day after his graduation, the court received results of a third drug screen that was inconsistent with normal human urine.

[7] On August 19, 2024, the probation department filed a second request for a probation violation hearing—leading to the appeal now before us—alleging Lewis tested positive for cocaine. Another warrant was issued, and Lewis was again arrested. Lewis admitted the violation at a fact-finding hearing on October 9.

[8] At a December 6 hearing, Lewis requested that the remainder of his probation be revoked and that he be permitted to participate in RWI a second time with the ability to seek a sentence modification upon successful completion. The State, however, recommended the remainder of Lewis’ probation be revoked without the ability to modify following successful completion of RWI.

[9] In considering its decision, the trial court noted it had “been more than generous” in giving Lewis “every opportunity” including granting him a sentence modification following his participation in RWI and allowing him to remain on probation while participating in SEIVTC. Id. at 34. The court also considered Lewis’ prior substance-related criminal convictions and his multiple corresponding probation violations. Following the State's recommendation, the court revoked Lewis’ probation without granting the ability to modify pending successful completion of RWI. Lewis was ordered to serve the remainder of his previously suspended 1,059 days in the DOC.¹ Lewis now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Lewis contends the trial court's revocation of his entire 1,059 day suspended sentence was too harsh “in light of [his] efforts to obtain treatment and his demonstration of responsibility for his conduct.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. Emphasizing he had not been charged with any further criminal offenses and that there was no evidence his behavior was harmful to others, Lewis alleges the court's 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), reh'g denied. “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 his 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. 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 Lewis’ probation included not consuming illegal controlled substances. Lewis admitted that he tested positive for cocaine. This was the second time Lewis violated his probation by testing positive for an illegal controlled substance. And Lewis received multiple prior opportunities to participate in recovery-based programs while serving his executed sentence and probation for this case. During one of those opportunities—his participation in SEIVTC—Lewis again tested positive for an illegal substance. Under these circumstances and coupled with Lewis’ probation violations in other causes, the court was well within its discretion to order Lewis to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.²

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Lewis received 136 days of credit for his time incarcerated pending his second probation violation hearing.

2.   Lewis also compares his case to Brown v. State, wherein a trial court abused its discretion by ordering a defendant to serve the remaining sixteen-plus years of his original sentence because of technical probation violations including missed appointments. 162 N.E.3d 1179, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). However, Brown is inapposite to the case before us as Lewis was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence following substantive violations regarding substance use, not technical violations involving missed appointments.

Scheele, Judge.

Foley, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.