BRYANT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Raven Bryant appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for her violations of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August 2023, the State charged Bryant with Level 5 felony battery and Level 5 felony domestic battery for battering her mother. Both charges were elevated to Level 5 felonies because Bryant had prior battery convictions against her mother. Bryant and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Bryant would plead guilty as charged and receive a sentence of two years suspended to probation, with the condition that she undergo a mental-health evaluation and comply with all treatment.

[3] The sentencing hearing was held in November. Bryant told the trial court about her mental-health issues, including anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar disorder, and that she got monthly injections of Abilify. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Bryant to two years, with 584 days (after subtracting 146 days for time served and credit time) suspended to probation, and ordered her to undergo a mental-health evaluation and comply with all treatment. The court told Bryant that “the most important” thing for her to do was to “make a good faith effort really to just comply with [her] mental health.” Tr. p. 16.

[4] Bryant tested positive for cocaine on December 20, 2023, and on January 10, January 29, February 20, March 19, and April 3 of 2024. In late April, Bryant's positive drug screens were addressed administratively with an agreed modification to her probation to add substance-abuse evaluation and treatment as a condition of her continued probation.

[5] Three months later, in July, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Bryant violated her probation by failing to enroll in substance-abuse and mental-health treatment, failing to submit to a drug screen on May 9, and testing positive for cocaine on June 4 and July 3. A probation-violation hearing was held in August. Bryant and the State reached an agreement whereby Bryant would enroll in a residential substance-abuse treatment center. The trial court took the probation-violation allegations under advisement so Bryant could be released to the Assessment Intervention Center and then go to a treatment center run by Volunteers of America. Bryant, however, was unable to enroll at the Volunteers of America facility due to a waitlist, so the court modified its order to allow Bryant to seek treatment at a different facility.

[6] Bryant was admitted to a 28-day residential program at Ethan Crossing in September. While there, Bryant was accepted to a sober-living facility called Spain's House, where she would reside after completing the program. But on October 18, the State filed an amended notice of probation violation, alleging that Bryant was unsuccessfully discharged from Ethan Crossing on October 14 before finishing the program due to behavioral issues and her refusal to relocate to Spain's House. The State also alleged that Bryant tested positive for cocaine on September 4 (before entering Ethan Crossing) and admitted using illegal drugs on October 14 and October 15 (right after she was discharged from Ethan Crossing). The trial court issued an arrest warrant that same day.

[7] On October 29, the State filed a second amended notice of probation violation, alleging that Bryant failed to report to probation on October 16. A new appointment had been scheduled for October 28, but she failed to report to that one as well.

[8] Nearly three months later, in January 2025, Bryant was arrested on the warrant and held without bond. A probation-violation hearing was held the next month. Bryant admitted violating her probation by (1) not enrolling in mental-health treatment, (2) failing to comply with her substance-abuse treatment due to being unsuccessfully discharged from Ethan Crossing and refusing to go to Spain's House, (3) failing to submit to a drug screen, (4) testing positive for drugs on several occasions, and (5) failing to report to probation. The trial court accepted Bryant's admission and proceeded to a sanctions hearing.

[9] Bryant, who had been in custody since her arrest the month before, testified that a barrier to her going back to inpatient treatment or sober living was that the “location” was “too far out,” which “scared” her because she is a “paranoid schizophrenic.” Id. at 46. She said that after she was unsuccessfully discharged from Ethan Crossing in October 2024, she took her medicine “off and on” because she was homeless and “on the streets.” Id. She said she was currently getting her monthly injections of Abilify and had just gotten one that day. She claimed to have a new boyfriend, who treated her well, and that she could do home detention at his house. Defense counsel asked the trial court to order Bryant to serve the rest of her sentence on home detention. In the alternative, defense counsel asked the court to order Bryant to serve 365 of the 584 days in the Department of Correction (DOC), “which would let her get into the IDS program so we could ․ provide her some wraparound services while she's in DOC and then obviously they work with her ․ formally in the program for six months after but she can continue on ․ with the service providers indefinitely.” Id. at 49. When the trial court asked about program eligibility, defense counsel responded that it applied to DOC sentences of 1-3 years.

[10] The State asked the trial court to order Bryant to serve all 584 days in the DOC. The State pointed out that the court had given Bryant a “big opportunity” in August 2024 when it allowed her to go to a residential facility, but she didn't complete the program, started using drugs again after she was discharged, and then “absconded” for three months. Id. The State also noted that when Bryant is in the community, she struggles with drug use, making community supervision a bad idea. Finding that Bryant “showed effort,” the trial court ordered her to serve 484 days, which was less than her “full backup time,” in the DOC. Id. at 51.

[11] Bryant now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Bryant contends that the trial court erred in ordering her to serve 484 days in the DOC for violating her probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[13] Bryant first argues that the trial court “ignored [her] mental health struggles” and the fact that she was getting her monthly injections of Abilify at the time of the February 2025 sanctions hearing. Appellant's Br. p. 8. The court did not ignore Bryant's mental-health struggles; they have been at the forefront of this case since the beginning. Indeed, Bryant's plea agreement called for compliance with mental-health treatment as a term of her probation, and Bryant discussed her mental-health issues at both her original sentencing hearing and her sanctions hearing. The court told Bryant early on that the most important thing for her to do was to take care of her mental health. And although Bryant testified at the sanctions hearing that she had just received her monthly injection that day, she was in custody, and there was no evidence of how long she had been compliant.

[14] Bryant next argues that the trial court should have ordered her to serve her time on home detention. But as the State explains, Bryant hasn't shown that she is a good candidate for community supervision. The court already gave Bryant a break in August 2024 when it allowed her to go to a residential facility, but she didn't complete the program, started using drugs again after she was discharged, and then “absconded” for three months. In addition, there was no evidence about the suitability of using her new boyfriend's house for home detention.

[15] Finally, Bryant argues that the trial court should have ordered her to serve 365 days instead of 484 days in the DOC because it “would let her get mental health services at DOC, followed by indefinite help with various service providers.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. But as defense counsel told the court at the sanctions hearing, those same services are available for a 484-day sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Bryant to serve 484 days—100 days less than she faced—in the DOC.

[16] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

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