James Daniel Carrico, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] James Daniel Carrico appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violations of probation and community corrections. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In March 2023, the State charged Carrico with Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine in Cause No. 49D28-2303-F5-9216. Two months later, the State charged Carrico with Level 6 felony criminal recklessness for shooting a gun into the house of his ex-girlfriend and her aunt in Cause No. 49D28-2305-F6-12824. The trial court ordered him to have no contact with his ex-girlfriend.

[3] Carrico and the State later entered into a plea agreement covering both cause numbers. Carrico agreed to plead guilty to Level 5 felony unlawful carrying of a handgun in F5-9216 and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness in F6-12824 and that he would not contact his ex-girlfriend or her aunt for the duration of his sentence. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the possession-of-methamphetamine count in F5-9216 as well as charges under a third cause number. The State also agreed not to file a habitual-offender enhancement or “Invasion of Privacy charges based on communications between [Carrico] and [his ex-girlfriend] between March 30, 2023 and the date of sentencing.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 79. The parties agreed that Carrico's sentence would be five years (with a cap of two years executed) in F5-9216 and two years (with a cap of one year executed) in F6-12824. Placement would be determined by the trial court after argument by the parties, and the sentences would run consecutively.

[4] In March 2024, the trial court sentenced Carrico in F5-9216 to five years, with two years in prison, three years suspended, and one year of probation. In F6-12824, the court sentenced him to two years, with one year on Marion County Community Corrections home detention and one year suspended. The court ordered Carrico to have no contact with his ex-girlfriend or her aunt “for the duration of this sentence” and that the sentences would run consecutively. Tr. p. 26.

[5] Six months later, in September 2024, the State filed a notice of probation violation in F5-9216 and a notice of community-corrections violation in F6-12824 alleging that Carrico, while in prison, attempted to contact his ex-girlfriend by phone and mail in violation of the no-contact order. Carrico admitted violating the terms of his probation and community corrections by calling his ex-girlfriend around nine times and sending her around six letters. At the sanctions hearing, defense counsel asked that Carrico be returned to probation and community corrections. The State, on the other hand, asked that Carrico be given “full backup” time of four years in prison. Id. at 45. The State highlighted Carrico's criminal history—which includes at least nine felony and seven misdemeanor convictions as well as probation, work-release, community-corrections, and parole violations—and the fact that he has been to prison three times but still wouldn't “comply with court orders.” Id. The trial court revoked Carrico's placement in probation and community corrections and ordered him to serve two years in prison in F5-9216 and one year in prison in F6-12824, to be served consecutively.

[6] Carrico now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Carrico contends that the trial court should not have ordered him to serve time in prison for violating the terms of his probation and community corrections; rather, the court should have returned him to probation and community corrections. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation and community-corrections violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[8] Carrico claims that the trial court “failed to adequately consider the reformative goals of our justice system in revoking” his placement and ordering him to serve three years in prison. Appellant's Br. p. 9. He claims that, given his work history and relationship with his son and the fact that he has struggled with substance abuse and mental health, he needs probation and community corrections—not prison. While we don't dispute the importance of rehabilitation, Carrico does not acknowledge in his brief that he has at least nine felony and seven misdemeanor convictions and has violated nearly every alternative placement he's been given, including probation, community corrections, work release, and parole. Given this history, the court did not abuse its broad discretion in revoking his placement and ordering him to serve three years, which is one year less than he faced, in prison.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Judges Tavitas and Felix concur. Tavitas, J., and Felix, J., concur.