RUMBLEY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Karen S. Rumbley appeals the revocation of her probation and sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2024, the State charged Rumbley with possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony and possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor. Rumbley and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Rumbley agreed to plead guilty as charged and the State agreed to a sentence of 545 days suspended to probation. Rumbley also agreed to “check into Lighthouse Recovery within 14 days of release from incarceration & fully comply with & complete the program as a term of probation.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 48. On June 26, 2024, the trial court accepted Rumbley's plea and sentenced her pursuant to the plea agreement. The terms of Rumbley's probation provided “You SHALL report, in person, to the Washington County Probation Department no less than once each month, or more often if so directed by the Department” and, under “Other Conditions of Probation,” provided “shall attend and complete Lighthouse Recovery Program as term of probation” and “Report to Probation upon release.” Id. at 52.

[3] On August 30, 2024, Probation Officer Keith Barry filed a Petition for Revocation of Suspended Sentence alleging that Rumbley failed to pay any money towards fines and fees associated with her probation, that she had failed to contact the Washington County Probation Department since her release from detention, and that the Probation Department had not received any verification that she had enrolled at Lighthouse Recovery Center. The court issued an arrest warrant, and Rumbley was arrested on September 5, 2024. On September 10, 2024, Rumbley filed a Motion for Furlough stating that she had a broken hip necessitating surgery which was being conducted that day, and the court ordered that she be released on her own recognizance and set a hearing for September 30, 2024. On September 30, 2024, Rumbley appeared in court, and the court ordered her to provide medical documentation to the prosecutor within ten days and set a hearing for October 30, 2024.

[4] On October 30, 2024, Rumbley appeared in court, and the court set a hearing for December 18, 2024. Also on October 30, 2024, Rumbley reported to probation and submitted to a drug screen which was positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. On November 15, 2024, Rumbley submitted to a drug screen which was positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. Rumbley failed to appear for the hearing on December 18, 2024, the court issued an arrest warrant, and the warrant was served on March 25, 2025. The court set a hearing for March 31, 2025, and later rescheduled the hearing for April 7, 2025.

[5] On April 7, 2025, the court held a hearing at which it heard testimony from Probation Officer Barry and Rumbley. Rumbley testified that she “made an appointment with Lifesprings” but “hadn't had a chance to get there [be]cause [she] fell and broke [her] hip.” Transcript Volume II at 12. When asked, “[s]o, you acknowledge you haven't done your probation correctly,” she replied, “no, I haven't.” Id. She testified “I just have bad seizures,” “I done took a swan dive off the top of the bunk here,” and “[t]hey're just really bad and I'm afraid they're going to take my life if I don't get some kind of help.” Id. The court stated:

Rumbley did not report to probation when she was released, [ ] initially, then ․ a warrant was issued for her and she was arrested ․ and then was released because she had an injury ․ and then didn't show up after that. And then another warrant was issued. And then we were scheduled last week to have this hearing, and [ ] Rumbley ate batteries in the jail ․ within 15 hours before the hearing date, and had to be taken to the hospital. [T]hen today tries to get out of the hearing by saying she is hiring a lawyer, and frankly, I just don't believe that. I don't believe that your family is hiring a lawyer ․ [Y]ou admit that you violated the terms and conditions of probation, but I obviously would have found that anyway, because you failed to report to probation and failed to do the Lighthouse Recovery that not only was a term of probation, but was a negotiated, specific term in the plea agreement․

[T]he question then is what should be the remedy for that. I look back at your criminal history. You've had ten (10) prior arrests, most of those felonies. You, I believe then, placed on probation six (6) times and you violated your probation four (4) times, of the six (6) that you've been on probation. So, probation doesn't seem to be a real effective mechanism for you, and being placed on probation this time you didn't comply with it, and by my observation had no real intention of ever complying with it. You plead guilty to methamphetamine possession and then you tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. I'm not finding that as a reason that you violated your probation because it's not alleged in the petition, but I am finding that it is a reason that you should not be returned to probation. [Y]ou mentioned that you are concerned about your health problems and maybe dying in the jail. Well, it's a near 100% certainty that if you're out of jail and using fentanyl that you'll die. So, that's probably where you're headed unless you change your behavior. So, probation has been ineffective at keeping you from doing that, up until just recently. So, I don't find that probation is going to be useful.

Id. at 15-16.

[6] The trial court issued an order providing in part:

6.  The arrest warrant was served on March 25, 2025. A hearing on the PTR was then scheduled for March 31, 2025. On the day of the March 31, 2025 hearing, the Washington County Detention Center reported to this Court that the defendant had swallowed some batteries and had to be taken to the hospital, making her unavailable for the hearing. The matter was rescheduled to April 7, 2025.

7.  Prior to the start of the April 7, 2025 hearing, the defendant advised that she wanted a continuance of the hearing because she wanted to fire her public defender and that her family was planning to hire counsel for her. This Court denied the defendant's request because the Court found that the defendant's request was not a serious effort to hire counsel, but another attempt to delay the proceedings. The defendant's appointed counsel had done an excellent job for her up until that point and was prepared to proceed with the hearing. The defendant's history in the case, including failing to appear to court, failing to enroll in Lighthouse, failing to report to probation, and swallowing batteries, plus her lack of specificity on plans to hire counsel indicated that she was simply attempting to avoid responsibility.

8.  At the hearing, the defendant admitted that she had violated the terms of her probation by failing to report as directed and by failing to enroll in the Lighthouse facility. In addition, the State presented evidence to that effect.

9.  Accordingly, this Court FINDS by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of her probation by: (1) failing to report at all to probation prior to the filing of the PTR; and (2) failing to enroll in the Lighthouse Recovery Center.

10. Next, this Court heard evidence concerning the appropriate remedy for the defendant's violation. The State requested that this Court take judicial notice of the defendant's criminal history and admitted the drug screens where the defendant tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl. The defendant asked for mercy.

a. Upon reviewing the defendant's criminal history, the Court found that the defendant had been arrested on nine (9) prior occasions, with six (6) being felony offenses. The Court found that the defendant had been placed on probation six (6) times, and had violated her probation in four (4) of those causes.

b. In addition, this Court found that the defendant tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl on two separate occasions while on probation in this cause, though after the PTR was filed.

c. Finally, this Court found that the defendant had intentionally avoided taking responsibility for her actions by failing to report to probation, failing to enroll in Lighthouse, failing to appear at court, by swallowing batteries to avoid court, and by attempting to delay the proceedings again by insincerely claiming she needed more time to hire counsel.

11. The Court FINDS the appropriate remedy is for the entirety of the suspended sentence to be served in incarceration for the following reasons: (1) the defendant has an extensive criminal history, having been arrested on nine prior occasions with six of those being felony offenses; (2) the defendant violated probation in four of the six times she has been placed on probation in the past; (3) the defendant tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl while she was on probation in this case; (4) the defendant attempted to evade responsibility by failing to report to probation, failing to enroll in Lighthouse, failing to appear for court, by swallowing batteries to avoid the hearing, and by making an insincere request for time to hire counsel; and (5) that it is in the interest of the safety of the community and of the defendant herself to be incarcerated because she is unwilling to seriously engage in efforts to resolve her substance abuse problems.

Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 3-4. The court ordered Rumbley to serve her previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”).

Discussion

[7] Rumbley asserts the trial court violated her due process rights by revoking her probation based on uncharged drug use not alleged in its petition. She also argues the court abused its discretion in revoking her entire suspended sentence in light of her health, partial compliance, and efforts to avoid relapse. She argues that her “violations were primarily technical.” Amended Appellant's Brief at 13.

[8] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[t]he minimum requirements of due process that inure to a probationer at a revocation hearing include: (a) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (b) disclosure of the evidence against him; (c) an opportunity to be heard and present evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and (e) a neutral and detached hearing body.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). The Court held:

Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 479-480, 92 S. Ct. 2593 (1972); Stephens v. State, 818 N.E.2d 936, 941-942 (Ind. 2004) (observing the statutory scheme “reflects the Legislature's intent that trial courts have the flexibility both to use and to terminate probation when appropriate”). Indiana has codified the due process requirements of Morrissey in Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 by requiring that an evidentiary hearing be held on the revocation and providing for confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses by the probationer. When a probationer admits to the violations, the procedural safeguards of Morrissey and the evidentiary hearing are unnecessary. Instead, the court can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 480, 92 S. Ct. 2593. However, even a probationer who admits the allegations against him must still be given an opportunity to offer mitigating evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation. United States v. Holland, 850 F.2d 1048, 1051 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam).

Id.

[9] 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.

[10] 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).

[11] To the extent Rumbley asserts she was denied due process, she did not object or raise a claim on due process grounds at the hearing before the trial court. Accordingly, the issue is waived. See Terpstra v. State, 138 N.E.3d 278, 285-286 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (probationer waived due process claim in revocation proceeding due to failure to raise to trial court), trans. denied. Waiver notwithstanding, Rumbley received notice of the claimed violations of probation and admitted to violating the conditions of her probation by failing to report to the probation department and failing to enroll in Lighthouse Recovery. The court heard evidence and argument regarding the appropriate sanction, and Rumbley had the opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the State, cross-examine Probation Officer Barry, and present argument. The court was not prohibited from considering Rumbley's criminal history, her prior failure to comply with conditions of probation, and the results of her drug screen in determining an appropriate sanction. We find no due process violation.

[12] With respect to Rumbley's argument that the court abused its discretion in revoking her entire suspended sentence, the court found that Rumbley had been previously placed on probation six times and violated her probation in four of those causes, that she tested positive for methamphetamine and fentanyl after the Petition for Revocation was filed, and that she failed to report to probation, enroll in Lighthouse Recovery, and appear in court. The court was able to consider Rumbley's testimony regarding her health, her substance abuse, and the extent to which she attempted to comply with the terms of her probation. The court determined that probation was not effective for Rumbley. In light of the record, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Rumbley serve her previously suspended sentence in the DOC. See Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (no abuse of discretion in revoking probation where probationer failed to complete halfway house program for substance abuse given his prior criminal history).

[13] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[14] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.