Patrick Atkins, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Patrick Atkins filed a petition for sentence modification. The trial court denied the petition. Atkins now appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for sentence modification. We disagree, and accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Atkins raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Atkins’ petition for sentence modification.

Facts

[3] On February 26, 2022, Franklin County Sheriff's Deputy Kyle Hartman initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Atkins. Officers subsequently found methamphetamine, heroin, a syringe, and marijuana in Atkins’ possession and in the vehicle. On February 28, 2022, the State charged Atkins with the following offenses: Count I, dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony; Count II, dealing in a narcotic drug, a Level 5 felony; Count III, resisting law enforcement, a Level 6 felony; Count IV, obstruction of justice, a Level 6 felony; Count V, unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony; Count VI, driving while suspended, a Class A misdemeanor; Count VII, possession of marijuana, a Class B misdemeanor; and Count VIII, reckless driving, a Class C misdemeanor.

[4] On January 11, 2023, Atkins pleaded guilty to all counts without a plea agreement. On March 20, 2023, the trial court entered judgments of conviction and sentenced Atkins to an aggregate term of twenty-five years, with twenty years executed in the DOC and five years suspended to probation, with all counts to be served concurrently.¹ The sentencing order further provided,

If the [Atkins] successfully completes the RWI [Recovery While Incarcerated] Program, he shall be permitted to Petition the Court for modification of the sentence herein. If the defendant completes RWI, a completion notice is sent to the Court and an assessment is requested, Court shall GRANT a hearing to determine if a change should occur based on the progression of the defendant.

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 15.

[5] On May 16, 2025, Atkins filed a motion requesting that the trial court order the DOC to prepare a progress report concerning his conduct while incarcerated. The trial court granted the motion, and the DOC filed a progress report on May 28, 2025. On June 24, 2025, Atkins filed a petition for sentence modification. The trial court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing, and the State filed an objection to Atkins’ petition on August 19, 2025.

[6] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on August 21, 2025. Brianna Kowalkowski, the director of Addiction Recovery Services at the Correctional Industrial Facility, testified that Atkins completed the RWI program in January 2025 over a ninety-day period, during which he attended group sessions covering addiction behaviors and relapse prevention, and participated in individual sessions with a clinical counselor. Atkins completed the program with a “good prognosis.” Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Kowalkowski expressed confidence in Atkins’ prospects for success after incarceration and other counselors’ general positivity toward his prognosis. Kowalkowski acknowledged, however, that her knowledge of Atkins derived from her administrative oversight of the RWI program rather than direct therapeutic engagement with him.

[7] Atkins testified that he had struggled with methamphetamine addiction for approximately thirty years and that he had developed positive coping mechanisms through his participation in the RWI program. He planned to reside with his mother in Laurel, Indiana, and seek employment at area factories upon release, including pursuant to a recommendation from his DOC work supervisor to apply at Cummins. Atkins also testified that he intended to attend Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings if released and that, at fifty-three years of age, he had recognized the need to stop engaging in criminal behavior.

[8] On cross-examination, Atkins acknowledged that he had completed only a small portion of the Life Values Inventory, a self-assessment workbook assigned by DOC in April 2024. Additionally, Atkins had not completed a 300-word essay on education and employment assigned to him in May 2025. Atkins further acknowledged that he had been ordered to participate in three prior substance-abuse treatment programs but had participated in only two of them.

[9] The trial court denied Atkins’ petition. The trial court observed that Atkins’ criminal history spanned thirty years and included not only substance-abuse-related offenses but also burglary, forgery, grand theft, nonsupport, driving while suspended, and attempted purchase of cocaine, among others. Atkins’ current twenty-five-year sentence was below the maximum sentence supported by the record. Additionally, Atkins was expelled from the Grace Recovery and Wellness program for refusing to participate in group sessions and for exhibiting aggressive behavior toward staff while participating in a substance abuse treatment program from December 11, 2019, to January 7, 2020. Atkins continued to commit multiple criminal offenses following that treatment. Although the trial court acknowledged that Atkins had completed RWI, it concluded that sentence modification was “definitely premature at this time.” Tr. Vol. II p. 40. The trial court advised Atkins that it might revisit the matter in a few years if he continued to demonstrate positive progress. Atkins now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Atkins argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition for sentence modification. Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17 governs sentence modification. Subsection (e) provides:

At any time after:

(1) a convicted person begins serving the person's sentence; and

(2) the court obtains a report from the department of correction concerning the convicted person's conduct while imprisoned;

the court may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of sentencing.

I.C. § 35-38-1-17(e). Subsection (h) provides, further, that “[t]he court may deny a request to suspend or reduce a sentence under this section without making written findings and conclusions.” I.C. § 35-38-1-17(h). As a general rule, a trial court has no authority over a criminal defendant after sentencing, and Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-17(e) represents a narrow exception to that general rule. Newman v. State, 177 N.E.3d 888 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[11] It is well established that the mere fact that the process of rehabilitation may have started does not compel a reduction or other modification of a defendant's sentence. Marshall v. State, 563 N.E.2d 1341, 1343-44 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied. Our Court has consistently affirmed the denial of sentence modification petitions even where defendants presented evidence of genuine rehabilitative progress. See Newman, 177 N.E.3d at 891 (affirming denial where defendant completed multiple DOC programs, served as a mentor, maintained employment, and had no conduct violations); Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050, 1053 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (affirming denial where defendant presented statement of good conduct and opportunity for work release), trans. denied; Catt v. State, 749 N.E.2d 633, 643-44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (affirming denial where defendant paid restitution, tutored fellow inmates, and participated in religious programming), trans. denied.

[12] Here, Atkins contends that his case is distinguishable from Newman for three reasons: (1) he completed RWI, a program specifically designed for substance-abuse treatment; (2) Kowalkowski provided favorable testimony concerning his prognosis; and (3) he had served approximately twenty-five percent of his executed sentence at the time of the hearing, compared to Newman's approximately sixteen percent. We conclude, however, that these distinctions do not compel a different outcome.

[13] The record reflects that Atkins’ participation in RWI, while commendable, was, by his own account, a “good starting point.” Tr. Vol. II p. 31. Kowalkowski's testimony, moreover, established that the “good prognosis” designation reflected Atkins’ completion of RWI treatment benchmarks and requirements—not a broader professional judgment that Atkins would succeed as a law-abiding citizen upon release. Id. at 10. Kowalkowski's knowledge of Atkins derived from her administrative oversight of the RWI program rather than direct therapeutic engagement with him. Further, at the time of the hearing, Atkins had not completed a Life Values Inventory assigned to him in April 2024 and had not finished an essay on education and employment assigned in May 2025, despite having months to complete each assignment.

[14] The trial court, moreover, was within its discretion to balance Atkins’ rehabilitative progress against the circumstances of the original sentencing. Marshall, 563 N.E.2d at 1344. Those circumstances were significant. Atkins’ criminal history spanned thirty years and included seventeen prior convictions involving not only drug offenses but also burglary, forgery, grand theft, and other offenses. The trial court noted that Atkins’ current sentence was below the maximum supported by the record. The trial court further found that Atkins had been expelled from a prior substance-abuse treatment program for refusing to participate and for aggressive conduct and that he continued to commit crimes thereafter. Nothing in the record compelled the conclusion that Atkins’ completion of RWI was sufficient to overcome this history.

[15] Atkins further argues that the percentage of his sentence served at the time of the hearing distinguishes his case from Newman. We conclude, however, that the percentage of sentence served is but one factor for the trial court to weigh and does not, standing alone, require modification. The trial court here expressly acknowledged Atkins’ completion of RWI as a positive development and indicated a willingness to revisit the matter in the future should Atkins continue to demonstrate progress. This reflects the exercise of the trial court's discretion, not its abuse.

Conclusion

[16] We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Atkins’ petition for sentence modification.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Atkins appealed his sentence as excessive, and a panel of this Court concluded that his sentence was not inappropriate. Atkins v. State, No. 23A-CR-659, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2023) (mem.)., trans. denied.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur