Cornelius Earl Degefferd, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] While on probation for Level 5 felony auto theft, Cornelius Earl Degefferd absconded to Wisconsin. There, he racked up sixteen new criminal charges: eight counts of retail theft and eight counts of bail jumping. Degefferd pleaded guilty to seven of these charges and did not report any of the underlying law enforcement contacts to his Indiana probation officer. That officer thereafter petitioned to revoke Degefferd's probation based, in part, on his engagement in new criminal activity.

[2] Degefferd admitted to the alleged probation violations, after which the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve all four years of his previously suspended prison sentence. Degeffered appeals this sanction, arguing that the trial court erroneously believed it was required to order him to fully execute his previously suspended sentence. Finding the court both used and did not abuse its sanctioning discretion, we affirm.

Facts

[3] In 2021, Degefferd rented a pickup truck in Lake County for use with a landscaping business he owned. Despite knowing the rental period ended on July 1st, he failed to return the truck by that date or at any time during the next three weeks. The rental company eventually reported the truck as stolen, and the State charged Degefferd with auto theft, a Level 5 felony due to him having a prior auto theft conviction. Pursuant to plea agreement with the State, Degefferd pleaded guilty as charged in exchange for a suspended prison sentence of four years. The trial court accepted Degefferd's plea and sentenced him accordingly.

[4] Degefferd began serving his probationary term in March 2024. A month later, the Lake County Probation Department approved his request to transfer his probation to Cook County, Illinois. However, he failed to report to the Cook County Probation Office as instructed, and the transfer was ultimately denied. Then, in July and August 2024, Degefferd was charged in Wisconsin with a total of sixteen crimes: eight counts of Class H felony bail jumping, five counts of Class I felony retail theft, and three counts of Class A misdemeanor retail theft.¹ These charges were filed on three separate days under five different case numbers, and Degefferd failed to notify his Lake County probation officer of the law enforcement contacts underlying each. The cases were resolved by Degefferd pleading guilty to one count of Class H felony bail jumping, four counts of Class I felony retail theft, and two counts of Class A misdemeanor retail theft. All other Wisconsin charges were dismissed.

[5] In July 2025, the Lake County Probation Department petitioned to revoke Degefferd's probation, alleging the following probation violations: (1) failure to report to probation as instructed; (2) failure to pay probation user fees; (3) failure to report law enforcement contacts; (4) engaging in multiple criminal activities; and (5) leaving the state of Indiana without authorization. At a hearing on the petition, Degefferd admitted to each of the alleged probation violations. He then explained to the court that he had unspecified mental health issues that contributed to his non-compliance with probation. According to Degefferd, however, he had recently begun receiving treatment for those issues. He therefore asked the court to not revoke his probation and, alternatively, to order that he execute only part of his previously suspended prison sentence.

[6] Unpersuaded, the trial court revoked Degefferd's probation and ordered that he execute his previously suspended sentence in full. When imposing this sanction, the court stated:

Mr. Degefferd, I am empathetic to your -- the mental problems that you're presently facing, but I also have to weigh the plea agreement that you entered into with the State of Indiana and that was accepted by the Court. That becomes binding on the Court once it was accepted. Certainly on a Level 5 felony, your sentence could have been a period of one to six years in prison. It looks like it was a slightly aggravated sentence by a four -- by one year. But that was an agreed term. That's what you understand that your prison term would be, should you violate the terms and conditions of your probation.

Probably the biggest problem that I have is, is that it appears to me that in looking at the Petition to Revoke here, is -is that you were engaging in further criminal conduct once you were released on probation here in the State of Indiana. That you failed to get it transferred to Illinois, and then you went to Wisconsin and you committed various criminal offenses in various counties up in the State of Wisconsin. And while that might be attributable to your mental health, I still have to weigh the factors in terms of sentencing. And so, unfortunately, I don't believe that modifying your sentence at this time would be appropriate. There's no agreement between yourself and the State of Indiana to modify your sentence. Probation is not in agreement to modify your sentence. So I believe that I'm required to impose the remaining portion of the suspended sentence of four years.

Tr. Vol. II, pp. 18-19. Degefferd appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] “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). “The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Id. “If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the probation period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period,” the court may impose one or more sanctions, including “order[ing] execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). A trial court's sanctioning decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs when “the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188

[8] Degefferd claims the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning him by failing to exercise its discretion at all. He points to the court's oral sanctioning statement, in which the judge pro tem stated, among other things: “I ․ have to weigh the plea agreement that you entered into”; “That bec[ame] binding on the Court once it was accepted”; “[Four years is] what you underst[oo]d that your prison term would be, should you violate the terms and conditions of your probation”; and “I believe that I'm required to impose the remaining portion of the suspended sentence of four years.” Tr. Vol. II, pp. 18-19.

[9] Our Supreme Court has made clear that trial courts always have discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, even when there is an agreement that purports to require a specific sanction. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640-41 (Ind. 2008). Here, Degefferd's plea agreement did not purport to require a specific sanction for probation violations, but portions of the trial court's sanctioning statement suggest that the court erroneously believed it was “required” to reinstate Degefferd's entire four-year prison sentence. Tr. Vol. II, p. 19. The sanctioning hearing as a whole, however, reveals that the court understood it had discretion in the matter.

[10] During the hearing, the trial court allowed the State to make a recommendation as to an appropriate sanction and to present argument in support thereof. The court also heard evidence and argument from Degefferd as to why fully reinstating his suspended sentence would be inappropriate. The court later empathized with Degefferd's mental health issues but found his criminal activity in Wisconsin to be a “problem.” Id. at 18. Then, after expressly acknowledging that it “ha[d] to weigh the factors in terms of sentencing,” the court stated: “[U]nfortunately, I don't believe that modifying your sentence at this time would be appropriate.” Id. at 18-19.

[11] For these reasons, we find that the trial court both used and did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Degefferd for his probation violations. The court's judgment is therefore affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Retail theft is a Class I felony “if the value of the merchandise exceeds $500 but does not exceed $5,000.” Wis. Stat. § 943.50 (4)(bf). The crime is a Class A misdemeanor “if the value of the merchandise does not exceed $500.” Wis. Stat. § 943.50(4)(a).

Weissmann, Judge.

[12] Tavitas, C.J., and Foley, J., concur.