SCOTT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Deshana S. Scott appeals the trial court's revocation of her placement on probation. Scott raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she violated a condition of her probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 23, 2023, Scott pleaded guilty to intimidation, as a Level 6 felony, and resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to the plea agreement, Scott and the State agreed to ask the court for a sentence of one year and 183 days, all suspended to probation. The trial court accepted Scott's plea, entered judgment of conviction, and sentenced her accordingly.

[3] On November 15, 2024, the State filed an amended petition to revoke Scott's placement on probation alleging that Scott had violated the terms of her placement when she committed the new offense of criminal conversion, as a Class A misdemeanor. On November 21, following a hearing at which Scott admitted to the violation, the court returned her to probation but sanctioned her to six months of home detention, to be served at Allen County Community Corrections (“ACCC”).

[4] On January 14, Scott became involved in a verbal altercation with Malika Booker, another resident of ACCC. Scott had previously loaned Booker two dollars, and she asked Booker for the money to be returned. Booker thought that the debt had already been settled when Scott used some of Booker's hair products. Booker told Scott that she did not owe any money, and Scott “lashed out.” Tr. at 27. Scott told Booker that she was “going to beat [Booker's] a** and pull [her] arm out of the socket[.]” Id. Scott continued to get “more angry and aggressive” until a guard intervened. Id.

[5] Officer Nathan Ogle was dispatched to ACCC. Officer Ogle conducted interviews and was informed that Scott “was the aggressor[.]” Id. at 20. Officer Ogle then interviewed Scott, who “admitted to making a direct threat” toward Booker. Id. Specifically, Scott admitted that she had told Booker that she was “going to beat [Booker's] f***ing a**.” Id. In a separate cause number, the State charged Scott with intimidation, as a Class A misdemeanor.

[6] On January 15, 2025, the State filed its second notice of probation violation. The State alleged that: (1) Scott had “failed to obey all laws and maintain good behavior” while under the supervision of ACCC when she committed the new offense of intimidation, as a Class A misdemeanor, and (2) that she had “failed to pay fees as instructed[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 60.

[7] The court held a hearing on the State's petition on February 20. During the hearing, Booker and Officer Ogle testified to the events that had occurred on January 14. In addition, Officer Ogle testified that residents at ACCC are “not allowed” to make threats toward other people. Tr. at 25. In her defense, Scott admitted that she and Booker had had an argument and that she had called Booker a “b**ch” but denied having threatened her. Id. at 38.

[8] Following the hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott had violated the terms of her probation as claimed in the State's first allegation but that the State had failed to meet its burden regarding its second allegation. The court then revoked Scott's placement on probation and ordered her to serve the entirety of her previously suspended sentence at the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Scott appeals the trial court's revocation of her 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. In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, id., or when the trial court misinterprets the law ․

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.

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

[10] On appeal, Scott contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the revocation of her placement on probation.¹ Our standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation of probation is similar to our standard of review for other matters: “[W]e consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment—without regard to weight or credibility—and will affirm if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.’ ” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995)). One violation of a condition of probation is enough to support a probation revocation. Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[11] According to Scott, the State failed to demonstrate that she violated the terms of her probation because the State “did not enter any evidence of what the rules are of the ACCC.” Appellant's Br. at 14. However, the State presented the testimony of Officer Ogle, who explicitly testified that residents at ACCC are “not allowed” to “make threats toward other people.” Tr. at 25. Thus, while the State may not have presented a written copy of any rules, it presented evidence that the rules prohibited her from threatening other residents. Further, Scott acknowledged at the beginning of the fact-finding hearing that “the rules require her to behave well[.]” Id. at 17. In other words, there was evidence both that there was a rule in place requiring her to behave well and not threaten others and that she was aware of that rule. And the testimonies of Officer Ogle and Booker show that Scott violated that rule when she threatened to “beat [Booker's] a** and pull [her] arm out of the socket[.]” Id. at 27.

[12] Further, even if the State had failed to present evidence that she had violated a rule of her placement, which it did not, Scott does not dispute that she was required to obey all laws while on probation. And, here, the State alleged that she had failed to obey all laws and that she had committed a new offense. However, Scott argues that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that she committed intimidation.

[13] When an alleged probation violation is the commission of a new crime, conviction of the new crime is not required. Richeson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 384, 389 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). Instead, the State is required to prove—by a preponderance of the evidence—that the defendant committed the offense. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 617.

[14] Intimidation occurs when a person communicates a threat with the intent either that another person engage in conduct against the other person's will or that another person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. See Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1) and (2). Again, the evidence demonstrates that Scott threatened to “beat [Booker's] a** and pull [her] arm out of the socket” for failing to give Scott two dollars. Tr. at 27. That was enough to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott communicated a threat with the intent either that Booker engage in conduct against her will or that she be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act. Scott's arguments to the contrary are merely requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[15] The State presented sufficient evidence to show that Scott violated the terms of her probation. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion when it revoked her probation. We affirm the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Scott does not challenge the court's sanction following the revocation of her placement.

Bailey, Judge.

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