CURRY II v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Two years after receiving a three-year sentence for auto theft that was fully suspended to probation, Charles Curry violated his probation by committing two new crimes—another auto theft and an intimidation offense. Curry admitted to the probation violations, and the trial court ordered him to serve the previously suspended term. Curry now appeals that sanction as too harsh. We affirm.

Facts

[2] Curry pleaded guilty in the Lake Superior Court to Level 5 felony auto theft in July 2022 and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, fully suspended to probation. His probation was transferred to Porter County in April 2024. In October 2024, the Lake County Probation Department petitioned to revoke Curry's probation based on the filing of a new criminal charge against him in Porter County. When Curry later was separately charged with another new offense in Porter County, the Lake County Probation Department amended the revocation petition to include that latest offense. Curry ultimately pleaded guilty in the Porter County cases to reduced charges of Level 6 felony auto theft and Class A misdemeanor intimidation.

[3] At Curry's revocation hearing in Lake County, defense counsel and the State jointly recommended a sanction of nine months in jail, rather than full revocation of Curry's three-year sentence of probation. The Probation Department opposed the proposed sanction, emphasizing Curry's longstanding pattern of probation violations. The probation officer explained that Curry had been “placed on probation [in this case], and then six months later received new charges, and then shortly after that received new charges, as well.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 7. The officer further noted Curry's extensive criminal history.

[4] After rejecting the proposed nine-month sanction, the court advised Curry that he could withdraw his admission to the probation violations if he wished. Curry chose to proceed with his admission. The court ultimately revoked Curry's probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended three-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Curry appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Curry argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his entire three-year suspended sentence. He points to his mental-health diagnoses (post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and depression) for which he has received medication and other treatment. As reasons for a more lenient sanction, Curry also relies on his admission to the probation violation and the nonviolent nature of his underlying auto theft offense. Finding no error, we affirm.

[6] “Probation 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). “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.” Id.

[7] After Curry admitted the alleged probation violations, the trial court could impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) “[c]ontinue [him] on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions”; (2) “[e]xtend [his] 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.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). We review the court's choice of sanction for an abuse of discretion and will reverse only when that decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

[8] Curry separately pleaded guilty in Porter County to two new offenses—auto theft and intimidation—that he committed while on probation in this matter. At the revocation hearing, Curry admitted he violated the terms of his probation in Lake County by committing those new crimes. His commission of the new crimes alone provided a substantial basis for ordering execution of the suspended term. See Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (ruling that “[p]roof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation”). Indiana appellate courts have routinely affirmed revocations when a probationer commits new crimes while on probation. See, e.g., Utley v. State, 167 N.E.3d 777, 784 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (affirming revocation when defendant with lengthy criminal record committed new crime while on five-year term of probation).

[9] Moreover, Curry's broader criminal history also supported the trial court's decision. The Probation Department opposed the parties’ joint recommendation for a nine-month jail sanction, citing Curry's persistent difficulty complying with probation. At the time of his original sentencing in this case in 2022, Curry—who then was 45 years old—had amassed at least 13 misdemeanor convictions and 23 felony convictions over a period of more than two decades. In addition, his 11 prior terms of probation had yielded at least seven violations, three pending petitions to revoke probation, and outstanding warrants in multiple jurisdictions.

[10] Regardless of his criminal history, Curry contends the court should have imposed a lesser sanction based on his mental health conditions. “[C]onsideration of a probationer's mental health is only required where: (1) the State alleges the probationer has violated probation by committing a new crime and (2) the probationer's mental health issues affect the probationer's degree of culpability with regard to that new crime.” Gaddis v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1227, 1229 (Ind. 2021). But Curry did not raise his mental health conditions at the revocation hearing. Because he “did not connect his new crime[s] to his poor mental health, the trial court was not required to consider” Curry's mental health during the revocation proceeding. Id.

[11] Curry also claims his admission to the probation violations demonstrated acceptance of responsibility. But when the court rejected the negotiated nine-month recommendation and asked Curry whether he still wished to admit the violations, Curry responded, “We'll just get this over with.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 9. Given this circumstance, the court reasonably viewed Curry's admissions as carrying little significance, especially given Curry's criminal history and the seriousness of the probation violations.

[12] Curry's reliance on the nonviolent nature of his auto theft convictions is likewise unpersuasive. He was convicted of the new auto theft in Porter County just 21/212 years after his conviction for the auto theft for which he originally was sentenced to probation. The repetitive nature of his offenses shows that leniency in the form of a fully suspended sentence simply did not deter Curry's criminal conduct.

[13] In sum, Curry's decades-long criminal history, repeated probation failures, and commission of new offenses—including one mirroring his underlying conviction—showed that alternatives to incarceration would not be effective. The Probation Department recommended no further leniency, and Curry offered no mitigating evidence at the hearing. Curry has failed to show that the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve in prison his original suspended three-year sentence.

[14] We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.