WYNN v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Thomas Wynn Jr. admitted to violating multiple conditions of his probation, the trial court revoked most of his suspended sentence. Wynn appeals, arguing the trial court's sanction constituted an abuse of discretion.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2022, under Cause No. 39D01-2212-CM-1326 (CM-1326), the State charged Wynn with Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with alcohol concentration between 0.08 and 0.15. It later sought a sentencing enhancement, alleging Wynn was a habitual vehicular substance offender. In 2023, Wynn accrued other charges under a separate cause, including a charge for Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine.

[3] In February 2024, Wynn pled guilty to operating while intoxicated endangering a person, the habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement, and possession of methamphetamine. His other charges were dismissed. In CM-1326, he was sentenced to 365 days executed in the Department of Correction. His sentence was enhanced by 1,460 days—of which 1,280 days were suspended to probation with the first eighteen months to be served on home detention. For the possession of methamphetamine offense, he received 180 days executed in the DOC, to be served consecutive to his sentence in CM-1326.

[4] On February 27, 2025, while on probation, Wynn tested positive for methamphetamine. Throughout March, Wynn failed to report for one drug screen and failed to call in on five occasions to find out if he needed to submit to drug screens. At the end of the month, he was unsuccessfully discharged from a drug treatment program and charged with misdemeanor possession of a device or substance used to interfere with a drug or alcohol screening test.

[5] On April 8, the probation office filed a petition to revoke Wynn's placement on probation alleging the above conduct violated his conditions of probation. Specifically, it alleged that Wynn's actions violated the following conditions: (1) “obey all Federal, State, and Local Laws[,]” (2) “not [ ] use or possess any illegal drugs or alcohol[,]” (3) “participate in any and all programs and counseling deemed appropriate[,]” and (4) “meet with the Probation Officer as directed[.]” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 147-48.

[6] At a revocation hearing on May 22, Wynn admitted he had committed the alleged violations except for the new crime.¹ He testified that sometime around 2000, he suffered a severe electrocution injury that required dozens of surgeries to address, and he became “hooked on pain killers and it’[d] just been a down spiral since then.” Transcript at 10. He completed a substance use treatment program in 2007 and then “worked and supported [his] family” for a while before making some bad choices. Id. at 13. Wynn acknowledged he “need[ed] treatment” and requested the court permit him to participate in drug court or to attend an inpatient drug treatment program to which he had applied and been accepted Id. at 10. He shared that he had a wife with cancer at home and a son still in school.

[7] As a sanction for the admitted violations, the trial court revoked 1,030 days of Wynn's 1,280-day suspended sentence and terminated his probation as unsuccessful. Wynn appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Wynn argues the trial court's probation revocation sanction constituted an abuse of discretion. “Probation is a matter of a grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)), trans. denied. We review a trial court's determination of the appropriate sanction following the revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 306-07. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before it. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).

[9] “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. When a trial court finds that a person has violated the terms of his probation, it may, among other potential sanctions, “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended[.]” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). “[T]he selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendant's probation violation[.]” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[10] Wynn emphasizes that at the time of the probation revocation hearing he “fully admitted to his conduct[,]” “recognized his need for rehabilitation[,]” had applied for inpatient drug treatment, and had a sick wife and school-age son at home. Appellant's Brief at 10. However, the trial court explicitly—and appropriately—accounted for these circumstances in determining Wynn's sanction. At the revocation hearing, the court leveled with Wynn; it acknowledged his unfortunate “health history[,]” but it also noted his extensive criminal history, observing he had been “charged criminally in Indiana twenty-one times.” Tr. at 15. The court told Wynn that, given his involvement in the criminal justice system, he “kn[ew] what [he was and was not] supposed to do.” Id. The court continued, “You know who you can ask for help; that's what probation is there for. You ask them for help. You ask them to get you into treatment before you do something foolish.” Id. The court also explained that it was revoking 250 days fewer than his total sentence as a reward for Wynn taking accountability and admitting his violations.

[11] Given Wynn's several distinct violations of the conditions of his probation, his extensive criminal history, and his failure to utilize the tools probation gave him to fight the drug addiction he claimed he was ready to confront, Wynn has failed to prove the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked 1,030 days of Wynn's 1,280-day suspended sentence.

Conclusion

[12] We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked most of Wynn's suspended sentence.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State did not attempt to prove that Wynn committed the misdemeanor interference with a drug or alcohol screening test, instead opting to “stand with the petition without that particular violation.” Transcript at 7.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.