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
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
JAY RODIA GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANN L. GOODWIN
Deputy Attorney General
FILED
Indianapolis, Indiana
May 25 2012, 9:17 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
DARRELL LAWRENCE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1110-CR-939
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Steven R. Eichholtz, Judge
Cause No. 49G20-1012-FD-95482
May 25, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAY, Judge
Darrell Lawrence appeals the order that he serve his entire suspended sentence after
his probation violation. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 3, 2011, Lawrence pled guilty to Class D felony residential entry.1 The trial
court sentenced Lawrence to 730 days, with 180 days executed and 550 days suspended to
probation. The requirements of his probation included reporting to the probation department
and abstaining from criminal activity during his probation.
On April 27, Lawrence began serving probation, but he never reported to the
probation department. The court issued an arrest warrant for Lawrence because he had not
registered with the probation department. On June 30, the State petitioned to revoke his
probation because Lawrence had been arrested for failing to register with probation, for Class
B felony possession of cocaine,2 and for two counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement.3
On September 6, the trial court found Lawrence guilty of two counts of Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Lawrence admitted the probation violations and the
trial court ordered him to serve all 550 days of his suspended sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
The trial court’s decision regarding sanctions imposed on a probation revocation is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App.
1
Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1.5.
2
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(b)(2).
3
Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3(a).
2
2005), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Id. On finding the defendant
violated probation, the trial court may “[o]rder the execution of all or part of the sentence that
was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g).
Lawrence asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve all
550 days that had been suspended. It did not. Lawrence admitted he violated his probation
by committing two counts of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In light of the
fact Lawrence had not even bothered to register with probation when he was released from
incarceration, which resulted in a warrant for his arrest for violating probation, we cannot
find an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s refusal to allow Lawrence to return to
probation. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s decision to revoke Lawrence’s entire
probationary period.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3