MAY v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Emily Brianne May appeals the trial court's revocation of her probation and order that she serve the remainder of her previously suspended sentence. May contends the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed its sanction. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2025, pursuant to a written plea agreement, May pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, and Class B misdemeanor compulsory school attendance violation.¹ Her convictions stem from two incidents. In the first, May fled in her vehicle from law enforcement after an officer attempted to stop her for speeding. After she was detained, officers found marijuana and paraphernalia in May's purse. In the second case, May's daughter had missed more than thirty days of school and May did not provide excusable reasons for her daughter's truancy.

[3] On February 11, 2025, May was sentenced to an aggregate one-and-a-half years all suspended to probation. May signed her probation agreement the same day, and conditions of her probation included that she report to probation as required by her probation officer, not consume alcohol or illegal drugs, and not violate any laws or commit a new criminal offense.

[4] The next day, February 12, May reported to a probation appointment and tested positive for alcohol. May's urine screen was also dilute, meaning it contained “excessive amounts of water” or “something to conceal the results.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 15-16. May admitted to her probation officer that she consumed alcohol. On February 18, May informed her probation officer that she was feeling sick and would miss a probation appointment. Her probation officer advised her to go to the hospital and told May to provide proof that she went to the hospital. May did not provide any documentation to her probation officer.

[5] The State filed a petition to revoke May's probation on February 20, alleging May violated probation by consuming alcohol and failing to provide documentation for a missed probation appointment. An arrest warrant was issued. Before she could be apprehended in Indiana, May went to Kentucky without notifying her probation officer and was arrested for possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia. She did not notify her probation officer of these charges and was ultimately extradited back to Indiana on March 13. The State amended its petition to revoke May's probation, alleging she was charged with the new offenses. Prior to her hearing in the instant case, May pleaded guilty to the Kentucky paraphernalia charge.

[6] The court held a probation violation hearing on April 22, 2025. At her hearing, May denied her alcohol consumption and—for the first time—provided a one-page document showing she received medical treatment for a “sore throat” on February 18. Ex. Vol. III p. 5. May also testified that she had a cancer diagnosis for which she needed treatment that the jail could not provide; the record is devoid of additional evidence regarding May's diagnosis. In considering its decision, the trial court noted that May had multiple violations and determined it had “given [May] as many chances as it's going to give [her.]” Id. at 45. The court ordered May to serve the remainder of her previously suspended eighteen-month sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. May now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] May contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation. She alleges the court “failed to consider statutorily authorized graduated sanctions and [May's] critical need for cancer treatment, resulting in a disproportional sanction.” Appellant's Br. p. 10. We disagree.

[8] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'g denied. “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 v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) (2015) offers the trial court the following options when it finds a defendant has violated the terms of his probation: (1) “[c]ontinue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions[,]” (2) “[e]xtend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period[,]” or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.”

[9] We review a trial court's selection of a sanction for an abuse of discretion. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[10] May compares her case to Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). In Ripps, the defendant's probation conditions required him to comply with the terms of his sex and violent offender registration. The defendant moved into an assisted-living facility to receive treatment for terminal cancer, congestive heart failure, and obstructive pulmonary disease. The defendant reported his new address to the sheriff's department and learned that his residence was located 980 feet from a public library that qualified as a youth program center: this violated the offender registration requirement that he not reside within 1,000 feet of a youth program center. This court reversed the trial court's subsequent revocation of the defendant's probation given the totality of his circumstances: that he had a grave medical condition and attempted to comply with the terms of his probation.

[11] May argues that the trial court here “ignored mitigating evidence, including [her] compliance efforts and her serious medical condition[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 14. Unlike in Ripps, however, May's testimony about her diagnosis was uncorroborated, and she did not attempt to comply with the terms of her probation. May initially violated her probation by testing positive for alcohol a mere one day after she was sentenced. A few days later, May missed a probation appointment and failed to provide documentation excusing her from that appointment. Then, after a warrant was issued for her arrest on those violations, May went to Kentucky without permission and was charged with new offenses. At her revocation hearing in the instant case, May admitted that she pleaded guilty to one of the Kentucky charges. Under these circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion to order May to serve the remainder of her suspended sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   May's convictions stem from two cases: 65C01-2403-F6-131, wherein she was charged with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and three traffic infractions; and 65C01-2403-F6-188 wherein she was charged with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, and Class B misdemeanor compulsory school attendance violation.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.