DASHILLAS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Jamar Dashillas appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended prison sentence. Dashillas 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 August 2019, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Dashillas pleaded guilty to Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official.¹ His convictions stem from two incidents. In the first, officers encountered Dashillas following a report that a man committed a robbery while waving a gun at people. During the encounter, officers saw Dashillas throw a handgun under a car, located large amounts of methamphetamine in his vehicle, and found a glass pipe with residue in his pants. In the second incident, Dashillas struck an officer and knocked him into a wall while officers were transferring him to a padded cell. That officer received stitches and was diagnosed with a concussion. On October 21, 2019, the trial court sentenced Dashillas to an aggregate term of six years executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) for his convictions in both cases.

[3] On February 28, 2023, the trial court modified Dashillas’ sentence, suspending the remaining 630 days to probation. Conditions of his probation included that he not possess or use any controlled substance unless prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner and not violate any laws. The State filed a notice of probation violation on August 30, 2024, alleging Dashillas tested positive for THC and methamphetamine in January, April, and June 2024 and failed to report for two probation appointments. The State also alleged Dashillas had been charged with three new crimes: Level 6 felony residential entry; Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance; and Class B misdemeanor unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle.

[4] A warrant was issued, and Dashillas was taken into custody. The trial court ordered Dashillas to be evaluated for substance use treatment programs. He was administratively discharged from one program and failed to complete a second program. In December 2024, the trial court ordered Dashillas to participate in a third program, but he did not complete that program and was hospitalized after he “put a staff member in a headlock, [sic] and chased somebody around with scissors.” Tr. Vol. II p. 7. Dashillas was prescribed antipsychotic medication while hospitalized, which he continued to take while incarcerated and awaiting his probation violation hearing. The court ordered a competency evaluation, and Dashillas was deemed competent to stand trial on his probation violations.

[5] The court held a probation violation hearing on May 12, 2025. Dashillas admitted to testing positive on the three drug screens from early 2024. He testified that he was using drugs because he “didn't have the right things to cope with” his mental health. Id. at 16. He also acknowledged his substance use made his mental health conditions worse and he was not consistently going for mental health treatment at the time. Finally, Dashillas admitted that he “wasn't successfully able to complete” any of the three treatment programs he was admitted to after his release from incarceration. Id. at 29.

[6] In considering its decision, the trial court noted that Dashillas “functions fairly well in terms of his competence while not abusing illicit drugs and being consistent with psychiatric medications.” Id. at 43. Still the court noted the difficulty it was presented with given the “continuous cycle of use of methamphetamine, and then psychosis, and then [Dashillas’] failure to follow ․ up with any treatment, or taking [his] medication[.]” Ultimately, the court concluded it needed to ensure the community was safe from Dashillas’ violent actions and revoked his probation. Dashillas was ordered to serve the remainder of his previously suspended 630 days in the DOC. Dashillas now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Dashillas contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because his violations were “primarily due to his untreated mental illness, not intentional misconduct.” Appellant's Br. p. 7. He also alleges the court “failed to consider less restrictive alternatives” like returning him to probation with a requirement to follow his medication regimen and treatment. Id. 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] Here, conditions of Dashillas’ probation included not possessing or using controlled substances not prescribed by a licensed medical provider. Dashillas admitted that he tested positive for illegal substances three times in early 2024. His argument that the court failed to consider less restrictive options is not persuasive. First, the court was not required to first consider less restrictive options than probation revocation following a violation. Second, Dashillas had three opportunities to participate in treatment programs while on probation, and he admits to having failed to successfully complete any of them. Under these circumstances, the court was well within its discretion to order Dashillas to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Dashillas’ convictions stem from two cases: 84D03-1902-F2-753, wherein he was charged with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, Level 6 felony intimidation, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia, and was alleged to be a habitual offender; and 84D03-1903-F5-1123, wherein he was charged with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Scheele, Judge.

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