Kwjaunte Smith, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Kwjaunte Smith admitted to several violations of the conditions of his probation in cause numbers 03C01-2308-CM-4314 ¹ (“Cause No. 4314”) and 03C01-2311-CM-5773 ² (“Cause No. 5773”), the trial court revoked his suspended sentences in both cases and ordered him to serve 126 days in jail in Cause No. 4314 and 231 days in jail in Cause No. 5773. Smith contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to execute his sentences. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October of 2023, Smith pled guilty in Cause No. 4314 to Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident, and the trial court sentenced him to 311 days on probation. The terms of Smith's probation included the conditions that Smith report to probation as directed; report any police contact; “[o]bey all laws of Indiana or any other jurisdiction”; “[m]aintain suitable employment”; “[n]ot possess or use alcohol, drugs, or paraphernalia”; and “[p]articipate in and pay for all programs and counseling deemed appropriate by Court Services[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 65. Smith agreed to the terms and to pay court costs, probation fees, and $500.00 in restitution within 180 days.

[3] On November 13, 2023, the State charged Smith with, inter alia, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, under Cause No. 5773 and petitioned to revoke his probation under Cause No. 4314. On July 11, 2024, Smith pled guilty in Cause No. 5773 to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. Smith also agreed to submit to a substance-abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations for treatment. Smith further agreed to admit to certain probation violations in Cause No. 4314 and to return to probation “under the same terms and conditions with the added condition of being placed with community corrections for the entire remaining term of probation.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 157.

[4] In Cause No. 5773, the trial court sentenced Smith to 231 days of probation. The trial court found that Smith had violated the conditions of his probation in Cause No. 4314 by committing the offenses charged in Cause No. 5773 and by failing to report his arrest to his probation officer. In Cause No. 4314, the trial court continued Smith on probation through community corrections for the remainder of his sentence. In addition to the standard conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Smith to participate in the Court Services alcohol and drug program, obtain a substance-abuse evaluation and follow all recommendations, and pay court costs and probation fees. Smith acknowledged that he understood the conditions of his probation.

[5] On August 6, 2024, the State filed another petition to revoke Smith's probation in Cause No. 4314, alleging that Smith had failed to pay his court costs, probation fees, and restitution. On September 30, 2024, Smith admitted to violating the conditions of his probation by failing to pay. On December 19, 2024, the trial court ordered Smith's probation extended by six months. The trial court ordered Smith to “make contact with his probation officer every two (2) weeks until employment is obtained[,]” “enroll in the Bartholomew County Works program to obtain employment[,]” and “work towards independent living.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 178.

[6] On March 3, 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Smith's probation in Cause No. 5773, alleging that Smith had failed to pay costs and fees. Smith failed to appear for a status of counsel hearing in Cause No. 5773 in April of 2025, which resulted in a warrant for his arrest. On May 14, 2025, the State filed a third petition to revoke Smith's probation in Cause No. 4314, alleging that Smith had failed to complete recommended treatment, used methamphetamine and marijuana, failed to pay restitution, and failed to pay costs and fees.

[7] On May 22, 2025, Smith admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation in both cause numbers. Specifically, Smith admitted that he had failed to complete recommended substance-abuse treatment, consumed methamphetamine and marijuana, failed to pay restitution, and failed to pay costs and fees in Cause No. 4314, and failed to pay costs and fees in Cause No. 5773. Based on Smith's admissions, the trial court found that he had violated the conditions of his probation in both cause numbers and proceeded to a dispositional hearing. At the dispositional hearing, Jason Hatcher from the probation department testified that Smith had been employed in January and February of 2025. Hatcher also testified that Smith had been discharged from substance-abuse treatment for failing to appear for therapy intake.

[8] On June 2, 2025, Smith received a “jail rule violation” for tampering with his cell door. Tr. Vol. II p. 39. At the dispositional hearing on June 5, Smith's probation officer, Stacey Innie, testified that after Smith had “tested positive for meth in October” of 2024, probation had recommended that he comply with “TASC” for substance-abuse treatment. Tr. Vol. II p. 25. Innie testified that Smith had tested positive for marijuana at his initial assessment with TASC and that he had not appeared for his next meeting or the rescheduled meeting. Innie testified that, while Smith had “started off pretty good” in reporting to probation every two weeks, he had failed to report once in March and during the entire month of April, other than leaving her a voicemail. Tr. Vol. II p. 27. Innie also testified that Smith had not attempted to obtain treatment since January of 2025.

[9] After the dispositional hearing, the trial court revoked Smith's suspended sentence in both cases and ordered Smith to serve 126 days in jail in Cause No. 4314 and 231 days in jail in Cause No. 5773.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Smith contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his suspended sentences and ordering him to serve his sentences in jail.

Probation is a matter of 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. 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. If 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. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citations omitted).

[11] Within the first month of being on probation, Smith had committed a new crime, Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person. Even after he was given a second opportunity at probation, Smith had used methamphetamine; failed to appear for a court hearing; and failed to pay restitution, court costs, and probation fees. Despite this, the trial court provided Smith with a third opportunity to complete probation, which opportunity Smith squandered again, by testing positive for marijuana, failing to attend the intake appointment for his substance-abuse treatment, failing to attend the re-scheduled intake appointment, being discharged from treatment, and failing to make any further efforts to seek treatment. Smith also failed to pay restitution, court costs, or probation fees, despite being employed in January and February of 2025, and he repeatedly began missing probation appointments. Moreover, just days before his June dispositional hearing, Smith tampered with his jail cell door, violating jail rules.

[12] Smith attempts to minimize his probation violations by arguing that they were “technical in nature.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. We disagree with this characterization.³ Smith's violations were far more than technical in nature, considering that he failed to comply with his substance-abuse treatment, appear at probation appointments, and abstain from using marijuana. We are further unpersuaded by Smith's comparison of the facts in his case to Brown v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). In Brown, a panel of this court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Brown to serve “the entire remaining term of sixteen years and 205 days in the Department of Correction as a result of” Brown's “technical violations[,]” i.e., that Brown had “missed an undetermined number of appointments with his probation officer.” 162 N.E.3d at 1183–84. As mentioned, Smith's violations were much more than “technical” and, in any event, he was ordered to serve 357 days, not sixteen years.

[13] Smith has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to execute the remainder of his previously-suspended sentence.

[14] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Formerly 03D02-2308-CM-4314.

2.   Formerly 03D02-2311-CM-5773.

3.   We further note that Smith attempts to minimize his violations by asserting that he “took responsibility for his conduct and demonstrated an intent to abide by the rules of probation.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. The record indicates otherwise: for instance, Smith admitted at the June dispositional hearing that he chose to go to work instead of treatment, and that he “chose not to” ask his probation officer for help finding another treatment center near him. Tr. Vol. II p. 43.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.