REFFETT v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Marvin Howard Reffett admitted to violating several terms of his probation, the trial court revoked four and one-half years of his previously suspended five-year sentence. Reffett contends that this was an abuse of discretion.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In 1995, after multiple convictions for operating while intoxicated (OWI), Reffett lost his driving privileges for life. But he continued to drive and thereafter obtained felony OWI and driving convictions in four separate criminal cases filed in 1998, 2000, 2001, and 2003. As a result of these convictions, Reffett served terms in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC), including an eight-year sentence imposed in the latter case.

[4] The criminal convictions in the instant case arose from an incident on February 7, 2024, in which Reffett drove a pickup truck into a utility pole and then walked away from the scene of the crash. The State charged Reffett the next day with Level 5 felony operating a motor vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and Class B misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident. On July 2, 2024, Reffett pled guilty as charged.

[5] On August 28, 2024, the trial court sentenced Reffett to five years in the DOC, all suspended to supervised probation. When imposing the sentence, the trial court noted Reffett's criminal history but also that Reffett had paid restitution to Duke Energy and had displayed “a good attitude” at the hearing and throughout the case. Appendix at 66. Reffett represented to the trial court at sentencing that he had not used alcohol or illegal substances in many years and that he could be trusted.

[6] Two weeks later, on September 10, 2024, Reffett tested positive for methamphetamine, among several other illegal or controlled substances. After again testing positive for these substances in November, Reffett entered into a therapeutic adjustment agreement with his probation officer, Candice Matthews, on November 19, 2024. The agreement provided that Reffett would comply with random drug screens, start the Matrix Program (Matrix), and thereafter attend Matrix three times per week.

[7] Less than a month after signing the agreement, Reffett began regularly failing to report for drug screens, missing three in December and five in January. He also had positive drug screens and was accumulating absences from Matrix. On February 7, 2025, he executed an administrative agreement to avoid a petition to revoke his probation being filed. Reffett agreed to complete Matrix, attend all appointments with Matthews, and call the drug screen line daily, submitting to drug screens as required.

[8] Reffett entered into another administrative agreement with Matthews on February 28, 2025, after being unsuccessfully discharged from Matrix. Reffett had also failed to report for a drug screen the day prior and had failed to call into the drug screen line many times that month. And he tested positive for methamphetamine, among other things, on February 10 and 24. Pursuant to this third agreement since starting probation six months earlier, Reffett agreed to complete an inpatient treatment program and follow treatment recommendations for aftercare. He also agreed to attend all probation appointments and comply with random drug screens.

[9] Reffett completed a 28-day inpatient treatment program on or about April 2, 2025. Upon discharge, his provider referred Reffett to aftercare, but he did not comply. Less than two weeks later, Reffett tested positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine, and THC. Then on April 30, 2025, Reffett committed a Class C misdemeanor by driving without his specialized driving privileges paperwork. He pled guilty to that offense on May 12, 2025, and was sentenced to time served. Meanwhile, he admitted using methamphetamine and THC on May 7.

[10] On May 20, 2025, the State filed a verified petition to revoke Reffett's probation and order execution of his sentence. The alleged violations included his new criminal offense, his continued use of methamphetamine and other drugs, his failure to comply with drug screens, and his failure to contact Matthews to inform her of his recent arrest. At a probation hearing in July, Reffett admitted to the alleged violations.

[11] At the dispositional hearing on August 11, 2025, Reffett testified on his own behalf. He acknowledged a lengthy prior history of alcohol abuse but claimed that he did not start using methamphetamine until about March or April 2024. Reffett explained that he used methamphetamine for “a little bit of energy” and that he “didn't see that it was going to hurt anything.” Transcript at 15. Reffett acknowledged that he had been using methamphetamine “[j]ust about every day” while on probation up until he started inpatient treatment. Id. at 15. He also admitted using methamphetamine again in April and May 2025, shortly after completing inpatient treatment. Reffett explained that his wife had died on March 30, 2025, while he was in inpatient treatment, and that prior to her death he had been her primary caretaker for five years.

[12] Matthews then testified about the unsuccessful rehabilitative efforts that she had made to address Reffett's substance issues while on probation. Matthews opined that she had exhausted all options to help Reffett be successful.

[13] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Reffett's probation, terminated probation as unsuccessful, and imposed four and one-half years in the DOC. The court explained:

So, Mr. Reffett, you entered a blind plea initially in this case and we had a sentencing hearing much like we had today, and at that time, I heard arguments about your health and about other things ․ [S]ome of the things that I've heard again today, and I gave you a fully [suspended] sentence. It was a Level 5 Felony, you've got a criminal history, but my recollection is that you assured me that you had not used any alcohol or other substances in many years and that you could be trusted. That's my recollection. You have not done the things that you needed to do. You were given a huge, huge chance by being placed on probation and you squandered that chance. Ms. Matthews gave you way too many opportunities ․ She put you on administrative agreements and you didn't do those things. You made it difficult for her to supervise you by failing to report, by failing to do drug screens, things of that nature on many, many occasions. You knew what you were supposed to do, you chose not to do it, and you undoubtedly were driving with meth in your system going to and from these jobs when you said you needed energy. I can't trust you to not use meth or some other drugs and get behind the wheel of a car. I can't trust you to place you back on probation. I trusted you the first time, but I can't do it this time. I'm going to mitigate your sentence because you admitted. I'm going to mitigate it by six months [and revoke the rest].

Id. at 36.

[14] Reffett now appeals, challenging the sanction imposed by the trial court. Additional information will be provided below as needed.

Discussion & Decision

[15] 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 trial court has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion and reversible only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of his probation at any time before the termination of the probationary period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, then the court may order execution of the sentence that had been suspended.” Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed on the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing).

[16] Reffett argues that the sanction imposed by the trial court constituted an abuse of discretion. In this regard, Reffett notes that he admitted violating the terms of his probation and that he professed a willingness to abide by the terms of probation if given another chance. Reffett also contends that his new misdemeanor conviction was a minor offense for not carrying paperwork with him while driving and that his other “violations, while numerous, were technical in nature.” Appellant's Brief at 11. Further, he notes his completion of inpatient drug rehabilitation in early April 2025, and the hardship caused by his wife's years of poor health and eventually death while he was in treatment.

[17] Reffett's violations were neither technical in nature nor deserving of a lesser sanction. As the trial court observed, Reffett was given a massive opportunity when he was originally sentenced in August 2024 to a fully suspended term. The trial court, at the time, trusted Reffett's claim that he had been free of substance use for years. He was not. Reffett, by his own admission at the probation hearing, had been using methamphetamine and marijuana at the time of his original sentencing, and he continued to do so after being placed on probation. While on probation, Reffett was provided services to address his drug dependency and, despite repeated violations, was given chance after chance to comply with the terms of probation. Reffett entered into multiple agreements with the probation department to avoid revocation of his probation, yet he continued to use methamphetamine, even after completing inpatient treatment. Further, while his wife's poor health and death were certainly a hardship for Reffett, we observe that his criminal conduct and substance abuse go back decades. Considering all the circumstances, we cannot say that sending Reffett back to the DOC for four and one-half years was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts.

[18] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Judge.

Brown, J. and DeBoer, J., concur.