Stuart Maurice Merriweather, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After pleading guilty to Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury, Stuart Merriweather violated the terms of probation on multiple occasions and admitted to doing so. The trial court revoked Merriweather's probation and sentenced him to serve two years of incarceration. Merriweather contends that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. Because we disagree, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 31, 2024, the State charged Merriweather with Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Merriweather's counsel filed a motion for psychiatric examination to determine if Merriweather was competent to stand trial, which motion the trial court granted. Upon examining Merriweather, two independent psychiatrists concluded that Merriweather was limited in his ability to understand court proceedings and aid counsel in his defense. Both reports indicated that Merriweather had been previously restored to competence through medication and time at the state hospital, and one report indicated that this was likely to be effective again. The trial court ordered Merriweather to be committed to the custody of the Indiana Department of Mental Health for evaluation and treatment in August of 2024.

[3] In November of 2024, the superintendent of the Richmond State Hospital filed a notice with the trial court stating that Merriweather had attained the ability to understand the proceedings and assist in the preparation of his defense. In December of 2024, Merriweather pled guilty to the Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury. On January 8, 2025, the trial court sentenced Merriweather to a six-year term, with three of the six years on mental-health probation and 1718 days suspended.

[4] On January 13, 2025, the State filed a notice alleging that Merriweather had never reported to begin his probation and the probation department had been unable to contact him. Merriweather was ultimately ordered to serve thirty days in the Marion County Adult Detention Center as a sanction. On May 1, 2025, the State filed a second notice of probation violation against Merriweather alleging that he had again failed to report to probation and that, on April 28, 2025, he had been charged with a new criminal offense, Class A misdemeanor battery. The State amended the notice on June 24, 2025, alleging that Merriweather had also been charged with two counts of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

[5] On November 6, 2025, a hearing was held in which Merriweather admitted to having violated the terms of his probation. Merriweather testified that he had been to the state hospital “a couple times,” the hospital had instructed him to stay on his “meds[,]” and he was currently doing so. Tr. Vol. II p. 22. Merriweather testified that he had been taking his medication since he had been back in jail. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Merriweather's probation and sentenced him to two years of incarceration.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Merriweather contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve two years of his suspended sentence. “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.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citations omitted). “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.” Id. (citations omitted).

[7] Merriweather does not challenge the trial court's finding that he had violated the terms of his probation; rather, he contends that the trial court erred by making “no mention of [his] mental health issues when imposing his sanction.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. We conclude that Merriweather has not shown that his mental health warrants a lesser sanction, because he has not shown any connection between his probation violations and his mental health. Merriweather's reliance on Patterson v. State, 659 N.E.2d 220, 222–23 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) is unavailing. In Patterson, we observed that, “at a minimum, a probationer's mental state must be considered in the dispositional determination of a probation revocation proceeding.” Id. However, in context, “consideration 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. Ct. App. 2021). The record reveals that Merriweather made no attempt to connect his new crimes with his mental health at the November 6th hearing.

[8] In any event, the record indicates that the trial court likely did consider Merriweather's mental health in imposing its sentence. Merriweather testified about his mental health, including that he had been to the hospital, that he had been taking his medication, and that when he is out of custody, he pays for his medication through Medicaid. Moreover, Merriweather's counsel argued in closing that Merriweather “is medicated to the point now where he can answer competency questions, and [․ t]aking his testimony into consideration, what we'd ask for is whatever the Court does is not to be the full backup.”¹ Tr. Vol. II p. 25. The trial court appears to have considered this argument and agreed, ordering Merriweather to serve only two years of his suspended sentence.² Merriweather has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve two years of his suspended sentence.

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

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State argued that “full backup time in the DOC” was appropriate. Tr. Vol. II p. 25.

2.   We note that while the State contends that Merriweather had originally had the entire six year sentence suspended, Merriweather argues, and the record indicates, that he had initially received 1718 days, or 4.7 years, of suspended time, and therefore had only faced 1718 days of incarceration after his violations. Nonetheless, the amount of time that Merriweather was ordered to serve after his multiple probation violations was much less time than he could have received.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.