IMEL v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Christopher D. Imel appeals the revocation of his probation and sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2023, the trial court issued an Order on Entry of Guilty Plea indicating that Imel pled guilty to “Domestic Violence or Child Abuse Case Obstruction of Justice, a level 5 felony,” and invasion of privacy as a class A misdemeanor. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 163. In May 2023, the court issued an order sentencing Imel to 2,436 days with 1,460 days suspended to probation. The court also issued an Order for Probation providing that, as conditions of his probation, Imel must not commit any criminal act, must not possess or consume controlled substances, and must submit to drug screens upon request. It provided that a positive test indication of illegal substances constituted a probation violation.

[3] The State filed a petition for revocation of probation on October 24, 2024, and a supplemental petition on October 29, 2024. It alleged that, on or about October 8, 2024, Imel was charged with domestic battery as a class A misdemeanor; on October 10, 2024, he provided a urine sample that tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ecstasy; and on or about October 25, 2024, he was charged with offender misstatement or omission as a level 5 felony. On January 16, 2025, the court held a hearing. When asked if he provided a urine sample which tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ecstasy, Imel answered, “Yes. I had a dirty drug.” Transcript Volume II at 8. When asked, “did you strike Theresa [Imel] in a rude, insolent and angry manner causing bodily injury to her,” he testified, “No, sir. I mean, there was a conflict. But I don't remember hitting her.” Id. Greensburg Police Sergeant Thomas Tuttle testified that, on October 8, 2024, he responded to a call involving Theresa Imel, that he took photographs of her, and that she had “a bruise on the lefthand side of her chin line” and “red markings on the collarbone.” Id. at 10-11. The court admitted the photographs. When asked “were the photographs consistent with what she was alleging,” Sergeant Tuttle answered, “Yes.” Id. at 11. Imel testified that he worked part-time as a mechanic at an auto body shop and had lined up a construction job. He indicated that he suffered from substance abuse addiction, his drug of choice was methamphetamine, he had inquired about substance abuse and mental health counseling, and he was approved for intensive outpatient or inpatient treatment at Meridian Health and for inpatient treatment at Hickory House Recovery. The trial court found that Imel admitted to using illegal substances and that he committed the criminal offense of battery. The court ordered that Imel serve 1,080 days of his previously suspended sentence as an executed commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”).

Discussion

[4] Imel asserts that he took responsibility for his conduct, admitted to violating his probation, recognized his substance abuse and mental health issues, and took the initiative to apply for and obtain admission to several inpatient and outpatient treatment programs. He argues that he maintained stable and legal employment and was a productive member of society. He requests that this Court reverse the trial court's order and remand with instructions to place him back on probation.

[5] Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) 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 (1) 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.

[6] We review trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that “[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed” and that, “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. When reviewing an appeal from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[7] The record reveals that, in October 2024, Imel provided a urine sample that tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and ecstasy. Further, Imel was charged with domestic battery, the court admitted Officer Tuttle's testimony and the photographs of Theresa's injuries, and the court found that the State proved that, more likely than not, Imel committed a battery against Theresa while on probation. The court was able to consider Imel's testimony regarding his employment and willingness to obtain substance abuse treatment. In light of the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ordering that Imel serve 1,080 days of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[8] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[9] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.