LITER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Rebecca Ann Liter (“Liter”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking her previously suspended sentence and ordering her to serve three years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Liter raises one restated issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the balance of her previously suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 27, 2020, Liter was charged under 39C01-2005-F4-00605 (“the F4-605 cause”) with Count I: aiding burglary as a Level 4 felony; Count II: aiding theft as a Class A misdemeanor; and Count III: possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony stemming from criminal conduct that occurred the previous day. On February 23, 2021, Liter entered into a plea agreement with the State and pleaded guilty to three counts, one count under the F4-605 cause and two counts under an unrelated cause, with all remaining counts to be dismissed.¹ The plea agreement specified that under the F4-605 cause, Liter would plead guilty to aiding burglary as a Level 4 felony and be sentenced to six years in the DOC with four years executed and two years suspended to probation. In the unrelated cause number Liter would receive an additional one–year sentence suspended to probation. Liter's sentences were to run consecutively for an aggregate sentence of seven years, with four years executed in the DOC and three years suspended to probation. On March 15, 2021, the trial court accepted Liter's guilty plea agreement and sentenced Liter in accordance with the terms of the agreement. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 93–95.

[3] On December 6, 2021, Liter filed a pro se Motion for Modification of Sentence. The next day, the trial court denied the motion because “[t]he sentence was imposed pursuant to a written agreement, and the Court is without jurisdiction to modify it without the State's agreement.” Id. at 8. On June 21, 2022, Liter filed a pro se petition to obtain the State's consent to file a modification of her sentence based on her completion of various educational, vocational, substance abuse, and life skills programs while incarcerated. On July 6, 2022, the State consented. A modification hearing was held on August 22, 2022, and Liter's sentence was modified to three years suspended to probation supervised by the Jefferson County Community Corrections Department (“JCCC”). The trial court ordered Liter to be released to probation that same day. See id. at 10.

[4] For two years, Liter remained compliant with the terms of her probation. However, in November 2024, she relapsed and tested positive for methamphetamine on two separate occasions. Based on her positive screens and as an alternative to violating her probation, Liter was required to complete a “[t]heraputic [a]djustment” which obligated Liter to call the “UDS line daily” and attend the “Matrix Program[.]” Id. at 132. However, Liter failed to maintain compliance with her therapeutic adjustment and subsequently tested positive for THC on one occasion in November 2024 and methamphetamine on two separate occasions in December 2024. Liter was again provided a “[t]heraputic [a]djustment” which required her to receive a substance abuse evaluation and to call the “UDS line daily.” Id. Liter completed the substance abuse evaluation but failed to call the UDS line as directed. Three months later, in March 2025, Liter admitted to using methamphetamine on March 5 and on March 11, 2025. On March 19, 2025, Liter agreed to attend and complete an inpatient treatment program and thereafter attend a transitional housing program for a minimum of three months. Liter's admission and obligations were memorialized by an Administrative Agreement (“the Agreement”) which she signed and specifically provided that she would:

a. Apply to approved inpatient treatment facility by March 21, 2025.

b. Attend approved facility upon admission and complete program.

c. Attend transitional housing program for a minimum of 3 months and follow all recommendations.

Id. at 131 (emphases removed).

[5] On April 29, 2025, a Verified Petition to Revoke Community Corrections (“the Petition”) was filed by the JCCC, and the State requested that the trial court revoke Liter's placement with JCCC and order her to serve the balance of her sentence in the DOC. The Petition alleged that Liter tested positive for methamphetamine on six separate occasions and for THC on one occasion. The Petition further alleged that Liter failed to maintain compliance with her two therapeutic adjustments, failed to call the UDS line daily which resulted in Liter missing scheduled drug screens, failed to report to Jefferson County Court Services (“JCCS”) once she completed her inpatient treatment, and refused to attend the transitional housing program.

[6] On June 4, 2025, a hearing was held on the Petition and Liter admitted to the following violations of her probation and JCCS placement: testing positive for methamphetamine on six separate occasions, not calling the UDS line as directed pursuant to her two therapeutic adjustments, and testing positive for THC on one occasion. See Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 9–12, 33. Liter disputed that she failed to enroll in transitional housing as required by the Agreement. Liter stated that she “did complete Sunrise Recovery ² . [She] was going to go into transitional housing[,] but [she] was waiting on a bed to become available.” Id. at 12. Liter further explained that she “talked with them several times and in the meantime [she] was doing IOP classes online and attending regular NA meetings since [she] was released[.]” Id. Additionally, Liter admitted to failing to report to JCCS within forty-eight hours after completing her inpatient treatment despite “not know[ing] about that” and forgetting “that ․ [she] was supposed to do anything like that.” Id.

[7] Liter's probation officer, Leah Pruett (“Officer Pruett”), testified at the hearing and explained that she was unable to successfully contact Liter after Liter completed her inpatient recovery. Specifically, Centerstone Recovery reported to Officer Pruett that Liter “told them she was going to work it out with the IOP program and that she wanted to stay in her home” and “wasn't interested” in going to transitional housing. Id. at 14.

[8] Liter completed her inpatient treatment on April 18, 2025, and explained that when she completed her interview with transitional housing on April 24, they said that “they did not have any beds available at that time, that it would be at least two weeks to a month before they had a bed available for [her] but they would keep in contact[.]” Id. at 27. Liter further explained that prior to graduating from inpatient treatment, she spoke to Officer Pruett and told her that she planned to do “online IOP classes and PHP until a bed became available” at transitional housing. Id. at 29. Officer Pruett informed Liter that she would “talk with her supervisor about it” and would follow up with her. Id. Officer Pruett followed up with her the next day and told Liter that she “couldn't do IOP or PHP at this time” and reminded her of her obligation to enroll in transitional housing. Id. at 29–30. Liter claimed that transitional housing had not yet reached out to her. Further, Liter explained that after leaving impatient treatment, she enrolled in services through Thrive, an outpatient provider, because it “help[s] you with recovery coaches, they help you find NA meetings, ․ IOP classes, [and] anything that you need to do.” Id. at 27. Liter acknowledged that prior to her arrest on May 6, 2025, a bed had become available at the transitional housing program, but Liter had failed to enroll. See id. at 29.

[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court determined that Liter was “in violation of her community corrections supervision” by testing positive for drugs and for failing to contact court services. Id. at 35, 36. Further, the court concluded that she “is no longer an appropriate candidate for community supervision.” Id. at 36. The trial court revoked all three years of her suspended sentence and ordered her to serve that time in the DOC.

[10] The next day, the trial court issued an Amended Order Revoking Probation and Order Appointing Appellate Counsel (“the Order”) which provided more detailed findings. The Order, in part, found “[Liter] violated probation by use of methamphetamine beginning in November 2024 and by failing to report to her case worker after completing or leaving a treatment program after 48 hours, and did not call the UDS line in substantial compliance with the conditions of her supervision.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 159–60. The trial court also explained in its Order that it did “not credit [Liter's] testimony. The Court credit[ed] the probation officer's testimony that [Liter] flatly refused to return from treatment to transitional housing.” Id. at 160. Furthermore, the Court noted that Liter “willfully refused to comply with Probation's requirement that she enter a transitional housing program. This demonstrate[d] distain for the Court's authority and show[ed] she is no longer a good candidate for community supervision.” Id. at 161. Liter now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Liter argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her previously suspended sentence. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h), if the trial court determines that a person violated a condition of probation, the court may impose one 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.

[12] We note that “[p]robation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. 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, 878 N.E.2d at 188. “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.” Id. “In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). “An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012)), trans. denied.

[13] Liter argues that in light of the nature of her violations and her effort to maintain sobriety, the trial court abused its discretion when it “ordered her to execute the entirety of her suspended sentence.” Appellant's Br. p. 12. Liter acknowledges that she relapsed and used illegal drugs, but points to her nearly two years of sobriety after leaving the DOC, her completion of the inpatient treatment program and enrollment in outpatient treatment programs in support of her assertion that the trial court abused its discretion. Further, she claims that her failure to enroll in transitional housing was due to “a discrepancy about whether [she] was willing to complete a stay in transitional housing[.]” Id.

[14] Despite Liter's argument that she did not willfully refuse to enroll in a transitional housing program, she admitted to violating the terms of her probation by using methamphetamine on six separate occasions and THC on one occasion, by failing to call the UDS line as directed, and failing to report to JCCS within forty-eight hours of completing or leaving a treatment program. See Tr. Vol. 2 pp. 9–12, 33. As we have previously explained: “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.), trans. denied. Based on the record before us, and the numerous violations, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in determining Liter was no longer a suitable candidate for placement in the community and ordering her to serve the balance of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[15] The trial court's order revoking Liter's probation and ordering her to serve three years of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC was not an abuse of discretion.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Liter was charged under 39C01-2005-F6-550 with Count I: attempted residential entry as a Level 6 felony and Count II: invasion of privacy as Class A misdemeanor. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 48.

2.   Sunrise Recovery is the inpatient substance abuse treatment facility Liter attended.

Foley, Judge.

Altice, C.J. and May, J., concur.