Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
Mar 31 2014, 7:51 am
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
MONIKA PREKOPA TALBOT
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
TRENTON BOLDEN, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 15A01-1310-CR-469
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship, Judge
Cause No. 15D02-0910-FD-220
March 31, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant-Defendant, Trenton Bolden (Bolden), appeals the trial court’s
revocation of his probation.
We affirm.
ISSUE
Bolden raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court
abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and imposed the balance of his
previously-suspended sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 16, 2009, the State filed an Information charging Bolden with theft, a
Class D felony and unauthorized entry of a vehicle, a Class B misdemeanor. On
February 25, 2010, Bolden entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he pled
guilty to theft in exchange for the dismissal of the misdemeanor charge. That same day,
Bolden was sentenced to 1095 days with 923 days suspended to probation.
On January 6, 2011, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that
Bolden violated his probation by operating a vehicle while suspended. On April 26,
2011, during a hearing, Bolden admitted the violation and the trial court revoked 180
days of his probation and placed him on in-home detention. On October 11, 2011, the
State filed a second notice of probation violation, asserting that Bolden had violated the
terms of his probation by failing to attend two scheduled probation appointments. On
2
April 23, 2013, Bolden admitted to the violation and the trial court revoked 365 days of
Bolden’s probation and placed him on in-home detention.
On July 2, 2013, the State filed a motion to convert Bolden’s sentence from
serving his sentence on in-home detention to serving the sentence in jail with no
community corrections privileges. On July 5, 2013, the State filed a third notice of
probation violation because Bolden had submitted a urine sample that tested positive for
oxycodone without presenting a valid prescription for the drug and because Bolden had
been convicted of two other felonies. On July 9, 2013, the trial court granted the State’s
motion to convert Bolden’s sentence to a term of incarceration. On July 16, 2013,
Bolden admitted to the third probation violation, and on July 30, 2013, the trial court
revoked the remaining 378 days of Bolden’s probation.
Bolden now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Bolden contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation
and imposing an executed sentence of 378 days. 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). The trial court’s decision is reviewed on appeal for an abuse of that discretion.
Id. On review, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without
reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If there is
substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a
defendant has violated any terms of probation, the reviewing court will affirm its decision
to revoke probation. Id.
3
Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a
factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Id. If
a violation is established, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants
revocation of the probation. Id. When a probationer admits to the violation, the court
can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation
warrants revocation. Id. At this step, the probationer must be given an opportunity to
present evidence that explains and mitigates his violation. Id.
Bolden admitted to violating his probation and merely disputes the length and
placement of the sentence imposed by the trial court. Specifically, Bolden maintains that
because he is “a man in need of drug and alcohol treatment,” a six-month prison sentence
would “give him enough prison time to stress upon [him] the seriousness of his actions
while allowing him time to get back into society and find a treatment program which can
help him combat his problems.” (Appellant’s Br. pp. 7, 8).
During the probation revocation hearing, the trial court considered Bolden’s
substance abuse history and his request to receive help. In fact, the trial court
recommended Bolden to the Purposeful Incarceration program at the Department of
Correction. At the same time, the trial court also noted Bolden’s recent spate of felony
cases, that he was unsuccessful on in-home probation on two prior instances, and that he
tested positive for ingesting oxycodone without a prescription. We cannot say that the
trial court abused its discretion by imposing the balance of Bolden’s previously-
suspended sentence.
4
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by revoking Bolden’s probation and imposing the previously-suspended sentence.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, C. J. and MAY, J. concur
5
Trenton Bolden v. State of Indiana
Combined Opinion