Terry Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Jul 06 2016, 7:05 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Richard C. Webster
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Terry Wilson, July 6, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A05-1601-CR-205
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David R. Bolk,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1407-F6-1876
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] Terry Wilson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues
that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision. Finding
the evidence sufficient, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On July 13, 2015, Wilson pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine
and possession of paraphernalia. In exchange for his guilty plea, he accepted
sentences of two years for the methamphetamine conviction and one year for
the paraphernalia conviction, to be served concurrently. Wilson received credit
for time served, and the remainder of the sentence was suspended to supervised
probation. One condition of probation was that Wilson successfully complete a
sober living program at a residential treatment facility.
[3] Wilson resided at the treatment facility for a while, but walked out on August 2,
2015. As a result, the facility dismissed him from its program. The State filed a
notice of probation violation. He and the State agreed, in exchange for his
admission that he violated the terms of his probation, to modify the probation
agreement: Wilson was to be evaluated for acceptance into a jail linkage
program, and, if accepted, he would complete that program and then complete
the sober living program. At an October 15, 2015, hearing on the violation, the
trial court accepted the new agreement and ordered Wilson to be evaluated for
the jail linkage program.
[4] At some point, the trial court became aware that Wilson had not participated in
the evaluation, and it scheduled a hearing for November 19, 2015. At that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 2 of 4
hearing, the trial court asked Wilson why he had not attended the evaluation it
had ordered. Wilson answered that he felt he could quit methamphetamine by
himself. The trial court asked, “So the bottom line is you’re not gonna do it,
even though you agreed last time in Court to do it; is that right?” Tr. p. 13-14.
Wilson responded, “Yes your Honor.” Id. at 14.
[5] On November 23, 2015, the State filed an Amended Notice of Probation
Violation, alleging that Wilson had violated the conditions of his probation
both by failing to complete the sober living program and by failing to attend the
jail linkage program’s evaluation. At a December 17, 2015, sanctions hearing,
the trial court found that Wilson had violated the terms of his probation. It
revoked his probation, and ordered Wilson to serve the balance of his sentence.
Wilson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Wilson argues that the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation. First,
he argues that his failure to complete the sober living program cannot be held
against him because the later probation agreement supplanted the earlier one.
Second, he argues that the only evidence presented at the sanctions hearing
regarding his refusal to be evaluated for the jail linkage program was his
probation officer saying that the probation revocation petition alleged that he
refused to be evaluated. He concludes, “[n]o evidence was presented to the
court regarding whether Wilson actually failed to enroll in the jail linkage
program.” Appellant’s Br. p. 8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 3 of 4
[7] We will focus on the second of these claims, as it is dispositive. It is well settled
that the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke
probation. Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). It is
equally clear that a defendant’s admission that he violated a condition of
probation is sufficient evidence to find that the condition had been violated.
See, e.g., Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 759, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
[8] Here, Wilson admitted in open court, in direct response to a question from the
trial court, that he was intentionally violating a condition of his probation by
refusing to complete the evaluation for the jail linkage program. The trial court
made no error when it found that he was intentionally violating a condition of
his probation based on this admission.
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A05-1601-CR-205 | July 6, 2016 Page 4 of 4