Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of Dec 11 2013, 9:23 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JILL M. ACKLIN GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Acklin Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Westfield, Indiana
ANGELA N. SANCHEZ
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JOSEPH A. HARRELL, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 52A02-1307-CR-576
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Daniel C. Banina, Judge
Cause No. 52D02-1211-FD-268
December 11, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BAKER, Judge
Here, appellant-defendant Joseph Harrell appeals the revocation of his probation
after violating the terms of his probation only nine days after having his sentence
suspended to probation for previous offenses. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
FACTS
On November 7, 2012, the State charged Harrell with two counts of class D felony
domestic battery and one count of class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a
crime. On March 21, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Harrell pleaded guilty to one
count of class D felony domestic battery, and the trial court sentenced him to one and
one-half years with all but time served suspended to probation. Nine days later, Harrell
committed attempted theft, claiming that he had lost his job and decided to steal.
On April 26, 2013, Harrell’s probation officer filed a petition to modify or revoke
probation for committing the subsequent offense, and Harrell admitted to violating his
probation at the May 9th initial hearing. On June 6, 2013, the trial court held a sanctions
hearing and considered Harrell’s criminal history, including a domestic battery
conviction, felony reckless endangerment, several driving offenses, and probation that
had been terminated as unsuccessful as aggravating circumstances. The trial court
revoked Harrell’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his suspended
sentence in the Department of Correction. Harrell now appeals.
2
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Harrell argues that the trial court erred in ordering his entire suspended sentence to
be executed because “he accepted responsibility [and the new offense was] an isolated
incident.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4. We review a trial court’s decision to revoke probation
for an abuse of discretion, which 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). Where, as here, a probationer admits to the violation, the trial court can proceed
directly to whether the violation warrants revocation. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637,
640 (Ind. 2008). “A trial court may revoke a person’s probation upon evidence of the
violation of any single term of probation.” Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017
(Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
In the instant case, in addition to Harrell admitting to the violation, Harrell’s
criminal involvement began at a young age and has escalated. Harrell has been convicted
of domestic battery twice within four years. PSI p. 6-7. Moreover, Harrell violated his
probation that was imposed on an earlier conviction, and, consequently, it was terminated
unsuccessfully. Id. at 6. Perhaps most compelling, Harrell violated his probation in this
case only nine days after being sentenced. Tr. p. 19. Under these facts and
circumstances, we cannot say the trial court erred by revoking Harrell’s probation and
ordering the balance of his suspended sentence to be executed in the Department of
Correction. See Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 255, 262-63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (affirming
3
imposition of balance of suspended sentence based on defendant’s criminal history and
prior unsuccessful probation).
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
4