Autumn R. Bell, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Autumn Bell (“Bell”) appeals the sanction imposed following the revocation of her probation. Specifically, she argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve two and one-half years of her previously suspended aggregate four-year 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 Bell to serve two and one-half years of her previously suspended aggregate four-year sentence after she had violated the terms and conditions of her probation.

Facts

[3] In April 2023, the State charged thirty-three-year-old Bell, in Cause Number 82C01-2304-F5-2144 (“Cause 2144”), with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The charges resulted from an incident that occurred on April 8, 2023.

[4] Also, in April 2023, the State charged Bell, in Cause Number 82C01-2304-F5-2153 (“Cause 2153”), with two counts of Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The charges resulted from an incident that occurred on April 9, 2023.

[5] In October 2023, Bell pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to both charges in Cause 2144 and all three charges in Cause 2153. Thereafter, on November 9, 2023, the trial court sentenced Bell pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement. Specifically, the trial court sentenced Bell, in Cause 2144, to two (2) years for the Level 5 felony conviction and one (1) year for the Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court further ordered the two sentences to run concurrently with each other for an aggregate sentence of two (2) years in Cause 2144.

[6] In Cause 2153, the trial court sentenced Bell to two (2) years for each of the Level 5 felony convictions and one (1) year for the Class A misdemeanor conviction. The trial court further ordered the three sentences to run concurrently with each other for an aggregate sentence of two (2) years in Cause 2153.

[7] In addition, as set forth in the plea agreement, the trial court ordered the two-year sentence in Cause 2144 and the two-year sentence in Cause 2153 to run consecutively to each other, for an aggregate sentence of four (4) years. Further, the trial court suspended all of the sentences to probation.

[8] The terms and conditions of Bell's probation included abstaining from the use of controlled substances and alcohol. In addition, as a special condition of probation, Bell was required to undergo a mental health evaluation and follow all treatment recommendations.

[9] Less than one week later, the State filed a petition to revoke Bell's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Bell had tested positive for methamphetamine on November 14, 2023. The trial court held a hearing on the petition, and Bell admitted that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probation by using methamphetamine the day after the trial court had sentenced her. The trial court ordered Bell to undergo a mental health evaluation and to successfully complete any recommended treatment.

[10] Bell underwent an evaluation at Southwest Behavioral Healthcare (“Southwest”) and completed a recommended residential treatment program at Stepping Stone (“Stepping Stone”) in December 2023. Following Bell's completion of this program, Stepping Stone referred Bell to Stepping Forward for Women (“Stepping Forward”), a sober living facility. Bell completed the first phase of Stepping Forward's program but then failed to comply with Stepping Forward's requests that Bell provide proof of her employment and pay stubs. When Stepping Forward asked Bell to sign releases of information to obtain the requested information, Bell refused. Stepping Forward extended the deadline for Bell to provide proof of her employment and income, but Bell still failed to comply with Stepping Forward's requests. In February 2024, Stepping Forward terminated Bell from the program because of her lack of compliance.

[11] Four days later, the State filed a second petition to revoke Bell's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Bell had violated her probation because she had failed to successfully complete Stepping Forward's recommended treatment. The trial court held a hearing on the petition, found the allegation to be true, and ordered Bell to remain in treatment and to report to the probation department. In April 2024, the trial court placed Bell in Drug Abuse Probation Service (“DAPS”) so that she could be drug tested more frequently.

[12] Three months later, in July 2024, the State filed a third petition to revoke Bell's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Bell had violated the terms and conditions of her probation by testing positive for alcohol. The trial court held a hearing on the petition, and Bell admitted that she had violated the terms and conditions of her probation by consuming alcohol. The trial court ordered Bell to remain in custody to be evaluated for a residential treatment program. The trial court further ordered Bell to successfully complete any treatment recommendations. Bell subsequently returned to Stepping Forward.

[13] One month later, in August 2024, the State filed a fourth petition to revoke Bell's probation. Specifically, the State alleged that Stepping Forward had terminated Bell from its program because of her lack of participation and her continued defiant behavior.

[14] The trial court held a hearing on the fourth petition in September 2024. At the hearing, Bell asked the trial court to give her another chance on probation. The trial court responded as follows:

No, I've given you, not only did we give you Probation when you committed the two crimes, but then we gave you an opportunity to get treatment and you violated it and you were discharged from Stepping Forward. You began drinking again. We gave you another chance to be at Stepping Forward and you violated again.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 13-14).

[15] Thereafter, the trial court ordered Bell to serve, in Cause 2144, one (1) year of her previously suspended sentence. Further, in Cause 2153, the trial court ordered Bell to serve one and one-half (11/212) years of her previously suspended sentence. In addition, the trial court ordered those sentences to run consecutively to each other for a two and one-half year (21/212) sentence to be executed in the Department of Correction.

[16] Bell now appeals.

Decision

[17] Bell argues that “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it revoked the bulk of Bell's suspended sentence.” (Bell's Br. 9). According to Bell, “[t]he nature of her probation violations did not warrant such a sanction.” (Bell's Br. 9). Bell asks this Court to “remand this cause with instructions that a portion of Bell's suspended sentence be reinstated.” (Bell's Br. 9).

[18] 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 her 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).

[19] Here, our review of the record reveals that the revocation petition at issue in this appeal was the State's fourth petition to revoke Bell's probation. Although the trial court determined that Bell had violated her probation as alleged in the State's first three petitions, the trial court did not order Bell to serve any portion of her suspended sentences for her previous violations. Rather, for Bell's first violation, which was using methamphetamine the day after the trial court had sentenced her, the trial court simply ordered Bell to follow the terms and conditions of her probation by undergoing a mental health evaluation and successfully completing treatment. For Bell's second violation, the trial court ordered that Bell be placed in DAPS so that she could be drug tested more frequently. And, for Bell's third violation, the trial court ordered that Bell be evaluated for a residential treatment program.

[20] It was only after the State had filed, in less than a year, a fourth petition to revoke Bell's probation that the trial court ordered her to serve two and one-half years of her aggregate four-year suspended sentence. The trial court's decision to deny Bell yet another chance is amply supported by the record and not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Throughout the history of this case, the trial court extended grace to Bell after numerous substance abuse related relapses. As a result, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered Bell to serve two and one-half years of her previously suspended sentence.

[21] Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

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