WALTERS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Charles Walters (“Walters”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his previously suspended sentence and ordering him to serve 545 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Walters raises one restated issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Walters to serve his sentence at the DOC rather than placement in a residential substance abuse treatment facility. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 6, 2023, the State charged Walters with Count I: Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine and Count II: Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Walters entered into a plea agreement with the State where he agreed to plead guilty to Count I in exchange for dismissal of Count II and serve a three-year suspended sentence, less time served. The plea agreement further specified that Walters would “undergo a substance abuse evaluation and complete treatment as required[,]” with “[a]ll other aspects of [Walters's] sentence ․ determined by the [c]ourt[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 46.

[3] A hearing was held on July 21, 2023, where Walters pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 145 days executed and the remaining 950 days suspended to probation. The trial court imposed the following specific conditions of probation: “[N]o alcohol or non-prescribed controlled substances. The Court is ordering random testing. The Court is ordering no new arrests, and strict compliance.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 19. The trial court found Walters indigent as to a fine, court costs, and a public defender fee and imposed administrative and probation fees.

[4] On October 3, 2023, the State filed a Notice of Probation Violation alleging six different violations. The allegations included that Walters failed to report to Probation on September 18, 2023; that Walters “failed to maintain a single, verifiable residence and notify [Probation] within 48 hours of any change of address”; failed to complete a substance abuse evaluation; “failed to pay all Court-ordered fines, costs, fees, and restitution”; and failed to submit to drug screenings on August 23, 2023, and September 8, 2023. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 70.

[5] That same day, a warrant was issued for Walters's arrest. Walters remained at large for approximately one year until the arrest warrant was served on October 17, 2024. Walters was appointed a public defender and was held without bond “pending the resolution of the [alleged] violation[.]” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 28. In the ensuing months, an evidentiary hearing was continued numerous times, with Walters requesting three separate continuances so that he could apply for admittance to the behavioral health court or other treatment programs.

[6] Walters's probation violation was eventually heard on March 13, 2025. Walters's attorney explained that Walters was denied admittance into the behavioral health court and thereafter, Walters admitted to all the alleged probation violations. After admitting to the allegations, Walters indicated that he began using drugs after the death of his brother. Walters explained that he was an addict and an alcoholic who “like[s] to go fast.” Id. at 55. At one point, Walters admitted that he “just continued to drink and ․ forgot that [he] was even on probation[.]” Id. Walters further stated that he “just went on a binge. A drinking and getting high binge. You know, trying to kill [his] pain.” Id. Walters also cited drugs as causally related to the death of his son and daughter. Walters explained that he was incarcerated in the state of Texas during the year his warrant remained outstanding. During the five months Walters was in jail awaiting resolution of his case, he claimed he was able to maintain his sobriety and participate in “narcotics anonymous and alcoholics anonymous and PACE[.]” Id. at 56. Walters testified that he had been approved for residential treatment at Volunteers of America, but a bed would not be available until sometime between April 1 and April 10.

[7] After hearing argument from both parties, the trial court then ordered Walters to serve 545 days of the 754 days of available back up time, executed in the DOC. Walters now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Walters does not dispute the trial court's finding that he violated his probation. Rather, Walters challenges the sanction imposed by the trial court, alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his previously suspended sentence and ordering him to serve 545 days executed in the DOC.

[9] Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h), if the court determines that a person violated a condition of probation, the court may impose one 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.

[10] As to the selection of a sanction, our Supreme Court has explained that “[p]robation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (quoting 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.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. “In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion.” Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

[11] Walters argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentence executed in the DOC rather than at the Volunteers of America residential treatment program. In support of its decision, the trial court noted Walters's criminal history, his prior failure to appear, and that he was incarcerated in the state of Texas during the time his warrant remained outstanding. See Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 59, 60. We note that Walters's violations began within the first three months of probation, when he failed to appear for a meeting with the probation department; failed to appear for two separate drug screenings; failed to pay his court-ordered fines, costs, fees, and restitution; failed to complete a substance abuse evaluation; and failed to maintain a single, verifiable residence. As we previously explained: “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” DePalma v. State, 258 N.E.3d 1081, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Hammann, 210 N.E.3d at 832). Furthermore, the record reflects that an evidentiary hearing was postponed for several months to explore treatment options. At the evidentiary hearing, Walters testified that he was accepted into a residential treatment program, but that a bed would not be available for at least another month. Walters was also not found to be a suitable candidate for behavioral health court. In the end, Walters admitted to six violations of his probationary terms, all of which occurred within the first three months of his placement on probation, and then, remained at large for approximately one year while serving time on other criminal charges in Texas. Under the circumstances, the trial court's order revoking the previously suspended sentence and imposing 545 days executed in the DOC was not an abuse of discretion.

[12] Affirmed.

Foley, Judge.

Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.