Charles Anthony Winters, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Charles Anthony Winters (“Winters”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation. Winters raises one issue for our review, whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the balance of his previously suspended sentence and ordering him to serve that time in the Jennings County Jail. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 23, 2022, Winters was charged with Level 6 Felony possession of methamphetamine. On May 5, 2022, Winters pleaded guilty and received a sentence of 540 days in the Indiana Department of Correction. The sentence was fully suspended, with Winters obligated to serve 360 days on supervised probation. The conditions of Winters's probation included complying with drug screens, abstaining from consuming illegal drugs, meeting with his probation officer, successfully completing substance abuse treatment, pursuing his GED, paying his probation fees, and requesting permission to change addresses. Winters's probation officer reviewed these terms with him, and Winters initialed and signed the terms. On March 13, 2023, Winters's probation was transferred from Jennings County to Marion County.

[3] From June 14 to July 19, 2023, Winters missed nine consecutive drug screens. Additionally, Winters was directed to enroll in substance abuse treatment by June 22, 2023, but he did not enroll until July 12, 2023. Winters failed to provide proof of GED enrollment. Winters last met with his Marion County probation officer on July 31, 2023. On August 4, 2023, the probation department filed a notice of probation violation due to the missed screens and failure to provide proof of GED enrollment (“First Petition”). On August 28, 2023, Winters took a drug test, in which he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC. On September 6, 2023, a second notice of probation violation was filed based upon Winters's positive drug screen (“Second Petition”). The trial court set a hearing on both Petitions for November 8, 2023. Winters failed to appear at the hearing and a warrant was issued for Winters's arrest. The court indicated it would withdraw the warrant if Winters reported to probation by November 15, 2023. Winters failed to report to probation by the specified deadline and remained at large for nearly a year.

[4] Eventually, Winters was arrested on October 26, 2024. On November 22, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the Petitions. During the hearing, Winters admitted that he had not submitted to the nine drug screens. Winters explained that at the time of those screens, he was not working, which made it difficult for him to be able to pay for the drug screens. Next, Winters admitted to using THC while on probation, however he denied illicit use of amphetamine or methamphetamine. Winters claimed that amphetamine can be found in cans of Red Bull, which he purportedly consumed immediately before drug testing. Additionally, Winters admitted to moving without notifying his probation officer. Lastly, Winters testified that there was no reason to contact his probation officer after he absconded since he had no intention of turning himself in.

[5] On November 22, 2024, the court found that Winters violated his probation by admitting to the use of THC, not submitting to multiple drug screens, and moving without notifying his probation officer. In light of the violations and Winters's criminal history, which involved multiple drug-related offenses, the trial court ordered Winters to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence—448 days—in the Jennings County Jail. Winters now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Winters argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked the balance of his previously suspended sentence and ordered him to serve all of that time in jail. “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). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if these conditions are violated. Id.

[7] If the trial court determines a probationer has violated a condition of probation, it may impose one or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

[8] We review a trial court's 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. It is not an abuse of discretion to revoke a defendant's probation after he repeatedly violates his probation. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

[9] Winters does not dispute that he violated conditions of his probation by testing positive for THC and absconding for nearly one year. Rather, Winters challenges the trial court's decision to revoke the balance of his previously suspended sentence, arguing instead for a “shorter executed sentence.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. Winters claims the trial court abused its discretion in its placement decision because, when he was initially placed on probation, there was a period of time when he complied with the terms of his probation, such as reporting to every appointment, working towards his GED, and obtaining a place to live. Winters also maintains that he did not ingest methamphetamine or amphetamine obtained illegally. Winters also disputes the propriety of relying on evidence of missed drug screens by pointing out that he was unemployed and unable to pay the required fee for the drug screens.

[10] We note, however, that the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Here, Winters committed multiple violations of his probation, including not submitting to drug tests, using THC, and moving addresses without notifying his probation officer. Additionally, Winters stopped communicating with his probation officer and was on the run for almost a year with an open bench warrant, claiming that he did not want to turn himself in. Based on Winters's open defiance of the conditions of probation and prior criminal history, Winters was no longer a viable candidate for community placement or probation services. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked the balance of the previously suspended sentence and ordered Winters to serve that time in jail.

[11] Affirmed.

Foley, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Felix concur. Mathias, J. and Felix, J., concur.