Duane Riddle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2021 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Jan 19 2021, 8:38 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher T. Sturgeon Theodore E. Rokita
Clark County Public Defender Office Attorney General of Indiana
Jeffersonville, Indiana
Steven J. Hosler
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Duane Riddle, January 19, 2021
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1479
v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Bradley B. Jacobs,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
10C02-1901-F5-17
10C02-1903-F2-5
Bradford, Chief Judge
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Duane Riddle pled guilty to a number of criminal offenses under two separate
cause numbers on April 23, 2019. Riddle was sentenced to an aggregate nine-
year term, all of which was suspended to probation contingent on his
participation in Veteran’s Court programing. Pursuant to the terms of his plea
agreement, the entire nine-year sentence would be revoked and ordered
executed in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) if Riddle’s participation in
Veteran’s Court was terminated.
[2] Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court was terminated on November 26,
2019, and the State filed a petition to revoke probation on February 22, 2020.
The trial court subsequently found that Riddle had violated the terms of his
probation and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement. On
appeal, Riddle contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that
the entire nine-year sentence be executed in the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On April 23, 2019, Riddle entered into a plea agreement under the terms of
which he pled guilty to Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine under
cause number 10C02-1901-F5-17 (“Cause No. F5-17”) and Level 4 felony
possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle
with an ACE of .08 or greater under cause number 10C02-1903-F2-5 (“Cause
No. F2-5”). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Riddle was sentenced
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 6
to an aggregate nine-year sentence. The suspension of his sentence was
contingent on Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court. The plea agreement
expressly stated that the entire suspended sentence “shall be executed in the
[DOC] if [Riddle’s] participation in [Veteran’s] Court is voluntarily or
involuntarily terminated.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. Riddle initialed this
portion of the plea agreement, expressly affirming that “the total sentence shall
be executed” in the DOC if he failed to successfully complete the Veteran’s
Court program. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23.
[4] On April 23, 2019, Riddle was transferred to Veteran’s Court. Despite some
initial progress, Riddle failed drug screens on September 4 and 22, 2019. Riddle
was subsequently ordered to participate in a detox program at The Healing
Place from September 24, 2019 until September 30, 2019.
[5] On October 1, 2019, Riddle informed his Veteran’s Court case manager that
there were no beds available at The Healing Place. His case manager instructed
him to return to The Healing Place for a different program. Riddle, however,
did not report back to The Healing Place. Riddle also stopped attending
Veteran’s Court sessions after October 1, 2019. Riddle later stated that he did
not attend further Veteran’s Court sessions or go to The Healing Place because
a friend told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. Riddle’s participation
in Veteran’s Court was terminated on November 26, 2019.
[6] The State filed a petition to revoke probation on February 22, 2020. Riddle
admitted to violating probation on June 26, 2020. The trial court revoked
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 6
Riddle’s probation and sentenced him, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ plea
agreement, to an aggregate nine-year term in the DOC. Riddle was also
recommended for the Recovery While Incarcerated program at the DOC.
Riddle subsequently filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied on
August 11, 2020.
Discussion and Decision
[7] 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. Once a trial court has
exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in
deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to
trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on
appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to
future defendants. 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.
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted).
[8] It is uncontested that Riddle violated the terms of his probation. On appeal,
Riddle argues only that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his entire
nine-year sentence and ordering that the entire sentence be served in the DOC.
Specifically, he argues that “[f]irst and foremost, it should be remembered that
he is an addict” and “[a]ddressing an addict’s problem instead of a lengthy
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 6
prison term could have led him to a new life instead of one likely to continue
the same pattern.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Riddle acknowledges that he did not
return to the drug-treatment center as instructed but argues that “[f]ailing to
appear after finding out that a warrant had been issued for his arrest should not
have been held against” him because “[d]rug addicts do not think rationally like
everyone else and should be given the benefit of the doubt.” Appellant’s Br. p.
7. We cannot agree.
[9] Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court was terminated after he failed to
return to the drug-treatment center as ordered. The parties’ plea agreement
explicitly states that the entire nine-year sentence “shall be executed in the
[DOC] if [Riddle’s] participation in [Veteran’s] Court is voluntarily or
involuntarily terminated.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. Riddle
acknowledged this language and expressly affirmed that “the total sentence
shall be executed” in the DOC if he failed to successfully complete the
programs ordered in accordance with his participation in Veteran’s Court.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23.
[10] Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) provides that if the court finds that the
person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the
probationary period, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the
sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Given this
statutory authority coupled with the fact that the parties’ plea agreement
expressly stated that unsuccessful termination of Riddle’s participation in
Veteran’s Court would result in the execution of the entire nine-year sentence,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 6
we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Riddle’s
probation and imposing a sanction that is consistent with the express terms of
the parties’ plea agreement. See State v. Stafford, 128 N.E.3d 1291, 1292 (Ind.
2019) (providing that trial courts are bound by the terms of a plea agreement
and, where a plea agreement calls for a specific sentence, the trial court is
bound by the terms of the plea agreement).
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 6 of 6