KOLSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] James C. Kolson appeals the trial court's sanction following the revocation of his probation. Kolson raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the court abused its discretion when it ordered that he serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 9, 2021, the State charged Kolson with aggravated battery, as a Level 3 felony (Count 1); criminal confinement, as a Level 3 felony (Count 2); two counts of domestic battery, as Level 5 felonies (Counts 3 and 4); three counts of domestic battery, as Level 6 felonies (Counts 5, 6, and 7); and intimidation, as a Level 6 felony (Count 8). On November 3, 2022, Kolson entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to Counts 1, 2, and 8 in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining counts. The court accepted Kolson's guilty plea, entered judgment of conviction, and sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years, with four years executed and two years suspended to probation.

[3] Kolson began his term of probation on February 1, 2024. On March 9, Kolson and a friend went to a bar in Louisville, Kentucky, and a “physical altercation” broke out. Tr. at 27. At some point, Kolson and a group of people were “kicked out” of the bar. Id. at 28. Kolson and his friend then returned, and the friend “began firing a handgun into the bar.” Id. at 30. One of the bullets struck a woman in the face.

[4] Thereafter, on April 29, the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed several charges against Kolson related to the incident, but, ultimately, Kolson pleaded guilty to assault under extreme emotional distress (complicity), as a Class D felony. The court accepted Kolson's plea.

[5] On November 6, the State filed a petition to revoke Kolson's probation and alleged that he had violated the terms of his placement when he committed the new offense in Kentucky. Following a hearing at which Kolson admitted to having violated the terms of his probation, the court revoked the balance of his previously suspended sentence and ordered him to serve 659 days in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Kolson appeals the court's revocation of his placement on probation. As our Supreme Court has explained:

“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 the conditions are violated. Id.

Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). Further,

Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation. Id.

Id.

[7] On appeal, Kolson admitted that he violated the terms of his probation when he committed the new offense in Kentucky. See Tr. at 10. But he challenges the court's sanction for his violation.

[8] Upon determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. We review a trial court's decision to revoke probation and a trial court's sentencing decision in a probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[9] Here, Kolson acknowledges that his violation was “criminal in nature.” Appellant's Br. at 12. But he contends that the court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence because “he was not the aggressor in this crime,” he “took steps to address his substance abuse issues,” and he remains “committed to his sobriety[.]” Id. at 11.

[10] However, Kolson pleaded guilty to three violent crimes in Indiana, for which he received a sentence of six years, with two years on probation. Kolson served his executed time and was released to probation on February 1, 2024. Then, in early March, Kolson was involved in a bar fight and was then complicit when his friend returned and fired shots into the bar, striking a woman in the face. Stated differently, after only approximately one month following his release to probation in Indiana, Kolson was involved with yet another violent crime in Kentucky. Further, Kolson has a criminal history that began in 2006 and spans two states. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Kolson to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.

Conclusion

[11] The court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Kolson following a probation violation. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[12] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.