Brandi Lynn Ramsey v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 14 2012, 9:28 am
court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
CLERK
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
RICHARD WALKER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
AARON J. SPOLARICH
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRANDI LYNN RAMSEY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A02-1105-CR-443
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Cause No. 48E01-0502-FD-051 & 48E01-0704-FD-066
February 14, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Respondent, Brandi Lynn Ramsey (Ramsey), appeals the sentence
imposed by the trial court after revoking her probation.
We affirm.
ISSUE
Ramsey raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as follows: Whether the trial
court abused its discretion when it revoked her probation and ordered her to serve her
previously suspended sentences.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 7, 2005, the State filed an Information charging Ramsey with
operating a vehicle after being adjudged an habitual traffic offender, a Class D felony,
Ind. Code § 9-30-10-16(A)(1) under cause number 48E01-0502-FD-51 (Cause FD-51).
On April 16, 2007, the State filed another Information, charging Ramsey with operating a
vehicle as an habitual traffic violator, a Class D felony, I.C. § 9-30-10-16(a)(1) under
cause number 48E01-0704-FD-66 (Cause FD-66). On May 23, 2007, Ramsey pled guilty
to both charges and the trial court sentenced her to eighteen months on each charge, with
sentences to run consecutively, all suspended.
On September 16, 2008, the State charged Ramsey with forgery, a Class C felony,
I.C. § 35-43-5-2(b)(1). Thereafter, on December 23, 2008, the State filed a notice of
probation violation in Cause FD-51 and Cause FD-66 for violating the terms of her
probation by (1) having committed a new felony while on probation; (2) failing to report
2
her new address; (3) failing to report timely to probation and to verify employment; and
(3) failing to pay court costs, fines, and probation fees. On February 22, 2011, the trial
court conducted an evidentiary hearing during which Ramsey admitted the allegations
contained in the State’s notice of probation violation. The trial court ordered her
probation revoked and sentenced her to eighteen months in the Department of Correction
on each Cause but stayed the sentence upon completion of drug court.
On March 16, 2011, the drug court held an evidentiary hearing to determine
Ramsey’s eligibility for its program. During the hearing, she was questioned about the
location of her minor children. Ramsey refused to answer the court’s question. The drug
court concluded that it would only allow Ramsey to enter the program if she would
answer the drug court’s questions. On April 19, 2011, the trial court conducted a hearing
on Ramsey’s failure to complete drug court. At this hearing, Ramsey again refused to
answer the trial court’s question with regards to the whereabouts of her children. The
trial court lifted the stay on her sentence and sentenced her to eighteen months in each
Cause with the sentences to run consecutively.
Ramsey now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Ramsey contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked her
probation and imposed a three year sentence at the Department of Correction.
Specifically, Ramsey claims that the trial court “should have considered in-house
detention which she had previously requested but which the court did not revisit. [Also]
3
Ramsey was not given a reasonable opportunity to participate in [d]rug [c]ourt.”
(Appellant’s Br. p. 12).
When a trial court finds a person has violated a condition of probation, the trial
court may continue the person on probation, extend the probationary period, or order
execution of all or part of the sentence that was originally suspended. I.C. § 35-38-2-
3(g). We review a sentencing decision in a probation revocation proceeding for abuse of
discretion. Peterson v. State, 909 N.E.2d 494, 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). When
reviewing an appeal from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence
most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Here, we do not consider the imposition of the executed sentence to be an abuse of
discretion. Ramsey’s criminal history includes four felony convictions and a long history
of substance abuse issues. While on probation for two Class D felony charges, she
committed a forgery, a Class C felony. Moreover, not only did Ramsey commit another
crime while on probation, she also violated numerous other terms of her probation.
Although Ramsey was given another chance with referral to drug court, she actively
choose to become ineligible for participation by refusing to answer the drug court’s
questions. See I.C. § 33-23-16-13 (an individual is eligible to participate in a problem
solving court program only if: . . . (2) the judge of the problem solving court approves the
admission of the individual to the problem solving court). We conclude that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an eighteen month executed sentence on
each Count.
4
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
when it revoked Ramsey’s probation and imposed the balance of her suspended
sentences.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J. and MATHIAS, J. concur
5