Kyle Goddard v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

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
Nov 23 2020, 8:21 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jennifer A. Joas Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Madison, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Josiah J. Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kyle Goddard, November 23, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-CR-1205
v. Appeal from the Decatur Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Timothy B. Day,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
16C01-1901-F6-5
16C01-1901-F6-28
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Kyle Goddard was sentenced, under two different cause numbers, to an
aggregate 1080-day sentence after he pled guilty to and was convicted of Level 6
felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic
drug, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court
ordered that 850 days of Goddard’s sentence be suspended to probation.
While Goddard was serving his suspended sentence, the State alleged that
Goddard had violated the terms of his probation by failing to complete a court-
ordered drug-treatment program, committing two new criminal offenses,
consuming illegal drugs, and failing to report to probation. Goddard
subsequently admitted, and the trial court found, that he had violated the terms
of his probation. The trial court then revoked Goddard’s 850-day suspended
sentence and ordered that Goddard serve the entire sentence in the Department
of Correction (“DOC”). On appeal, Goddard contends that the trial court
abused its discretion by revoking his 850-day suspended sentence and ordering
him to serve the full 850 days in the DOC. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On April 30, 2019, Goddard pled guilty under cause number 16C01-1901-F6-5
(“Cause No. F6-5”) to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and
Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an
aggregate 540-day sentence with 536 days suspended to probation. The same
day, Goddard pled guilty under cause number 16C01-1901-F6-28 (“Cause No.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 2 of 6
F6-28”) to Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug. The trial court imposed
a 540-day sentence with 314 days suspended to probation. The trial court
ordered that the sentence for F6-28 was to be served consecutively to the
sentence imposed in Cause No. F6-5.
[3] As conditions of his probation, Goddard was ordered, inter alia, to: not commit
any criminal acts, refrain from consuming illegal substances, enroll in and
successfully complete a court-ordered substance-abuse treatment program, and
report to his probation officer as directed. On July 2, 2019, the State filed two
petitions to revoke Goddard’s probation, alleging that Goddard had violated
the terms of his probation by failing to complete the court-ordered substance-
abuse treatment program, committing two new criminal acts, consuming illegal
drugs, and failing to report to probation as directed.
[4] On June 9, 2020, Goddard admitted, and the trial court found, that he had
violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked Goddard’s 850-day
suspended sentence and ordered that Goddard serve the entire sentence in the
DOC. In doing so, the trial court recommended that Goddard be placed in a
purposeful-incarceration program and indicated that it would consider a
petition for a sentence modification upon completion of the program.
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 6
[5] Goddard appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. “Probation is a
matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal
defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
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.
Id. (internal citations omitted). In challenging the revocation of his probation,
Goddard argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his entire
850-day suspended sentence. Specifically, he argues that the trial court should
have imposed a more lenient sentence in light of his addiction issues and his
then-unborn child’s diagnoses with a fatal disease and short life expectancy.
[6] The record reveals that Goddard committed numerous violations of the terms
of his probation. About two months into his probation, Goddard made the
unilateral decision to quit his court-ordered treatment at Todd’s Transitional
Housing after having used heroin throughout his treatment period. A few
weeks later, on July 7, 2019, Goddard was charged with Level 4 felony burglary
and Level 6 felony residential entry for acts which allegedly occurred on July 4,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 4 of 6
2019. Goddard also failed a drug screen at the end of July and later failed to
report to probation for about three months.
[7] The record further reveals that the trial court considered Goddard’s requests for
leniency due to his addiction issues and his then-unborn child’s diagnosis and
short life expectancy. The trial court considered Goddard’s request to be placed
on home detention but heard evidence that home detention might not be a
possibility at the time of sentencing. In sentencing Goddard, the trial court
indicated that it was not “unsympathetic” to Goddard’s position, recommended
that Goddard be assigned to the purposeful incarceration program aimed at
treating addiction, and indicated that it would consider a petition for sentence
modification upon Goddard’s successful completion of the program. Tr. Vol. II
p. 22.
[8] As the State points out, the trial court initially granted Goddard leniency and
the opportunity for treatment. Goddard, however, failed to take advantage of
the treatment opportunities provided to him while he was on probation. Based
on the facts before us, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion by revoking Goddard’s 850-day suspended sentence. See Sanders v.
State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 957–58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (providing that the trial
court “had ample basis for its decision to order” Sanders to serve her suspended
sentence when the evidence established that Sanders had admitted several
probation violations, including that she had (1) committed new criminal
offenses, (2) tested positive for drugs, and (3) failed to appear for an
appointment with her probation officer).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 5 of 6
[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 6 of 6