Jesse Tripp, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jesse Tripp appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended prison sentence. Tripp 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 March 6, 2018, the State charged Tripp with Level 3 felony aggravated battery and Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon. The State filed a habitual offender enhancement on July 16, 2018. Then, on January 4, 2019, the State filed an additional charge of Level 3 felony attempted aggravated battery. The charges stemmed from an altercation between Tripp and another inmate when they were both incarcerated at the Dearborn County Jail: after the pair argued about the television, Tripp stabbed the other inmate in the throat with a “toothbrush modified into a ‘shank’.” App. Vol. II p. 20.

[3] Pursuant to a written plea agreement, on January 4, 2019, Tripp pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon. The remaining charges, including the habitual offender enhancement, were dismissed. Tripp was sentenced to an aggregate term of six years, with two years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and four years suspended to probation.

[4] Tripp began his probation on August 17, 2023. Conditions of his probation included that he report to the probation department as directed, answer all reasonable inquiries from his probation officer, and notify his probation officer of changes in address within twenty-four business hours.

[5] With approval of the Dearborn County Circuit Court Probation Department, Tripp's probation was transferred to Oklahoma where he moved to reside with family. Within several months of his release, Tripp missed scheduled and rescheduled probation appointments on the following dates: November 20 and December 21 of 2023; and January 4, 9, and 17 of 2024. Tr. Vol. II p. 17; Ex. Vol. I p. 6. After each missed appointment, Tripp's probation officer attempted to contact Tripp directly and through Tripp's girlfriend or family members. In one instance, Tripp reported that he did not appear for his prior appointment because he did not have a ride but indicated his mother could drive him to the probation office within fifteen minutes. After forty-five minutes went by, Tripp did not appear. He reported to his probation officer that his ride did not show up and his mother could no longer drive him. On another occasion, the probation officer called a landline telephone number provided by Tripp, but the number was disconnected.

[6] On January 24, 2024, Tripp's probation officer went to Tripp's last reported address to attempt to locate him. Relatives at the address advised that Tripp no longer resided there. The State requested a probation violation hearing on January 31, 2024, on the basis that: Tripp missed multiple scheduled and rescheduled office visits; Tripp was no longer residing at his last reported address; and Tripp appeared to have “absconded.” App. Vol. III p. 48. A warrant was issued, and Tripp was arrested on February 7.

[7] At a fact-finding hearing on December 3, the trial court found that Tripp violated his probation. In determining what sanction to impose, the trial court considered the nature and circumstances of the underlying crime; Tripp's criminal history, which included sixteen prior felony convictions, four prior misdemeanor convictions, and four prior probation violations; and Tripp's failure to accept responsibility for his violations. The court also considered Tripp's participation in the Matrix program as a mitigator but gave it little weight. Tripp's probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve all four years of his remaining sentence in the DOC.¹ Tripp now appeals.²

Discussion and Decision

[8] Tripp contends the trial court's revocation of his entire four-year suspended sentence was too harsh. He alleges his violations were “entirely technical in nature” and contends the State petitioned to revoke his probation “based solely on the fact that [he] missed a few probation meetings[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 9. Emphasizing that his probation was otherwise successful in that he was employed, had stable housing and was “attending to his mental health[,]” Tripp alleges the four-year sanction was an abuse of discretion. Id. We disagree.

[9] 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.”

[10] 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.

[11] Tripp's comparison of his case to Brown v. State is unpersuasive. 162 N.E.3d 1179, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). In Brown, 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. Although the defendant missed appointments with his probation officer, the State presented imprecise evidence regarding the number of appointments that were missed because the probation officer did not keep sufficient records. That probation office also did not regularly keep records of phone calls the defendant made to the office. Therefore, the trial court's sanction revoking the defendant's entire sixteen-plus year suspended sentence was not commensurate with the severity of the defendant's violations.

[12] Here, however, the State's evidence regarding Tripp's probation violations and missed appointments was precise. Tripp's Indiana probation officer testified that Tripp missed probation appointments on November 20 and December 21. The Oklahoma probation officer kept a detailed log of Tripp's appointments, rescheduled appointments, and attempted contacts with Tripp, which was admitted into evidence at Tripp's probation violation hearing. Contrary to Tripp's assertion that he missed only two probation appointments, the record shows he missed a total of five scheduled or rescheduled probation appointments in less than two months. Between his missed appointments, Tripp failed to maintain contact with his probation officer: his phone was disconnected at one time; he did not answer or return calls from his probation officer; and he did not notify his probation officer before missing appointments. Finally, when his probation officer attempted to locate Tripp at his last reported address, other occupants reported Tripp no longer resided at the residence. Under these circumstances and coupled with Tripp's extensive criminal history and prior probation violations, the trial court was well within its discretion to order Tripp to serve the remaining four years of his previously suspended sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Tripp received 400 days of credit for his time incarcerated pending his probation violation hearing.

2.   In its brief, the State notes that Appellant's Notice of Appeal was due on January 2, 2025, despite being filed on January 3, 2025. However, the State does not request relief on this basis. Accordingly, we address Tripp's arguments on the merits.

Scheele, Judge.

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