Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Mar 27 2012, 9:24 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
DONALD S. EDWARDS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
STACY I. COTTRILL, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 03A01-1110-CR-471
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE BARTHOLOMEW CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable Stephen R. Heimann, Judge
Cause Nos. 03C01-0704-FC-750 & 03C01-0704-FC-857
March 27, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Stacy Cottrill admitted to numerous violations of her probation, and the trial court
revoked her probation and ordered her to serve the entire portion of her sentence that was
suspended at the time of her initial sentencing. Cottrill now appeals, arguing that the trial
court abused its discretion in sentencing her to all four years. We find no abuse of
discretion and therefore affirm the trial court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Following Cottrill’s guilty plea in two separate cause numbers to Class C felony
fraud on a financial institution, in January 2008 the trial court sentenced Cottrill to eight
years with four years suspended on each count, to be served concurrently. The trial court
placed Cottrill on probation for four years.
In September 2009, the trial court ordered Cottrill to enter the Community
Transition Program because it was in the “best interests of society for [Cottrill] to be
placed in the CTP in that the CTP can assist [her] in successfully reintegrating back into
society under the supervision of the Community Corrections Department by providing
skills training.” Appellant’s App. p. 67. Cottrill was in this program for three months.
Tr. p. 10. Her probation started January 1, 2010. See id. at 68.
A year later, on January 14, 2011, the State filed a petition to revoke Cottrill’s
probation in both cause numbers. The State alleged the following violations: (1) Cottrill
tested positive for methamphetamine, cocaine, and cannabinoids in July 2010; (2) she
failed to comply with her court-ordered substance-abuse treatment; (3) she was in arrears
on drug-screen fees and restitution to the banks, (4) she failed to provide documentation
2
regarding her current employment; and (5) she failed to attend or reschedule
appointments with her probation officer. Id. at 68-69; Tr. p. 4-7. Cottrill failed to appear
for her February 2011 initial hearing, and a warrant was issued for her arrest. Cottrill was
arrested six months later. The State then amended its petition to revoke Cottrill’s
probation, adding the allegation that she was charged with theft in Ripley County while
on probation and that that charge was still pending. Appellant’s App. p. 78.
At the October 2011 probation revocation hearing, Cottrill admitted to violating
her probation for all of the allegations. Id. at 84; Tr. p. 4-7. She asked the trial court to
place her on electronic monitoring through community corrections for the remainder of
her probation because when she was on electronic monitoring in the CTP, she “passed all
drug screens, made all . . . classes, [and] made all . . . appointments.” Tr. p. 10. Cottrill
added that she “want[ed] treatment” and could become employed. Id. at 10-11. Cottrill’s
probation officer testified that it was very difficult to monitor Cottrill while she was on
probation because Cottrill provided numerous addresses but could not be found at any of
them. Id. at 14-15. The probation officer explained that Cottrill had, for all intents and
purposes, been without any supervision since her last probation appointment on October
7, 2010, which was over a year ago. Id. at 15. The trial court revoked Cottrill’s
probation and ordered her “to serve the balance of her sentences of four (4) years in the
Indiana Department of Correction[].” Appellant’s App. p. 84. This appeal ensued.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Cottrill admitted violating her probation and therefore does not contest the
revocation of her probation. Instead, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion
3
in ordering her to serve the entire portion of her sentence that was suspended at the time
of her initial sentencing.
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.”
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to
trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be
less inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decision for a
probation violation is reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Id. An abuse of
discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id.
If a trial court finds that a person has violated her probation before termination of
the period, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended
at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). Here, we find that Cottrill’s
numerous probation violations and history of doing poorly on probation sufficiently
support the trial court’s decision to order execution of all four years that were suspended
at the time of her initial sentencing. The record shows that while Cottrill was on
probation in this case, she tested positive for several drugs, failed to complete a drug-
treatment program, failed to obtain acceptable employment, was arrested for theft, and
failed to stay in contact with the probation department. Notably, this all occurred after
the trial court gave Cottrill the opportunity to successfully transition to probation through
the CTP. Although Cottrill admitted having a “severe drug problem” and requested
treatment, Tr. p. 18, we find particularly relevant that Cottrill did not follow through with
4
her substance-abuse treatment while on probation. While Cottrill requested that she be
placed on electronic monitoring through community corrections, considering her
numerous probation violations, including her failure to stay in contact with the probation
department, the trial court’s determination that she be committed to the DOC is well-
supported by the evidence. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in
ordering Cottrill to serve the entire portion of her previously-suspended sentence in the
DOC.
Affirmed.
CRONE, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
5