Jimmy Scott Huntington v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2015 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Jul 27 2015, 5:28 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Gregory F. Zoeller
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jimmy Scott Huntington, July 27, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
15A01-1412-CR-00544
v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff
Case No. 15D02-1105-FD-202
Crone, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Jimmy Scott Huntington appeals the trial court’s judgment that he serve his
previously suspended three-year sentence for violating his probation. The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 5
dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its
discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In the summer of 2011, Huntington was charged with and pled guilty to class D
felony failure to comply with the sex and violent offender registration
requirements. He was sentenced to three years suspended to supervised
probation to be served consecutive to a probation violation sentence imposed in
another case. One of the probation terms was that Huntington would not
commit a criminal act.
[3] In September 2014, the Dearborn County Probation Department alleged that
Huntington violated the terms of his probation by committing the crime of
operating a vehicle while intoxicated. At the dispositional hearing, Huntington
admitted to the violation. The trial court found that Huntington violated his
probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended three-year
sentence. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Huntington argues that revoking his entire three-year sentence was an abuse of
discretion. Specifically, he argues that revoking just one year of his sentence
would adequately punish him for his violation and would take into account his
willingness to reform. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court
discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Runyon v.
State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 618 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 5
188 (Ind. 2007)). “Revocation of an individual’s probation deprives the
individual ‘not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only
of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole
restrictions.’” Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)
(quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972)). “Probation is a criminal
sanction whereby a defendant specifically agrees to accept conditions upon his
behavior in lieu of imprisonment.” Hurd v. State, 9 N.E.3d 720, 726 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014). “These restrictions are designed to ensure that the probation serves
as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the public is not harmed by a
probationer living within the community.” Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244,
1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, (2003).
[5] A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the alleged violation need
be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Carpenter v. State, 999
N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Violation of a single condition of
probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830
(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “The decision to revoke probation is within the sole
discretion of the trial court.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008).
[6] “A trial court’s probation decision is subject to appellate review for abuse of
discretion ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances.”’ Runyon, 939 N.E.2d at 618 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at
188. Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, a
court may either continue him on probation, with or without enlarging the
conditions, extend his probation for not more than one year beyond the original
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 5
probationary period, or order execution of the initial sentence that was
suspended. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(j). The imposition of an entire suspended
sentence is within the trial court’s discretion. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d
952, 957-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[7] Huntington admitted that he committed the offense of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated in direct violation of the terms of his probation. This admission
alone would support the imposition of his suspended sentence. Moreover,
Huntington’s history shows that he is a poor candidate for continuing
probation. He was placed on probation several times in the past and had
multiple violations. In one case, Huntington received a fifteen-year sentence
with ten years suspended. Because of his multiple probation violations,
Huntington spent the entire suspended portion of his sentence incarcerated in
the Department of Correction. The object of probationary terms and conditions
is to ensure that probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation. If a
probationer repeatedly violates probation terms, as is the case with Huntington,
the very purpose of probation is defeated.
[8] Further, Huntington reported that he consumed alcohol daily until he passed
out, but claimed that it was not apparent that he had an alcohol abuse problem
until his arrest for operating while intoxicated. Even if it were plausible that
Huntington did not recognize drinking to unconsciousness was a problem until
his arrest, it does not change the fact that he was drinking every day in direct
violation of his probation. Huntington has been afforded numerous
opportunities to pay his debts to society via probation in lieu of imprisonment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Through his own actions, he has squandered those opportunities and earned the
resulting sentence revocations.
[9] The foregoing facts demonstrate Huntington’s disregard for court orders and
the probation system. The trial court had ample basis for its decision to order
that Huntington serve his entire suspended sentence and did not abuse its
discretion.
[10] Affirmed.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 5