Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not
be regarded as precedent or cited
Dec 18 2014, 8:52 am
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:
CARA SCHAEFER WIENEKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Plainfield, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICHAEL VICARS-GOINGS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 84A04-1405-CR-242
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE VIGO SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable David R. Bolk, Judge
Cause No. 84D03-0808-FD-2550, 0803-FD-796, 0806-FD-2050, 0802-FD-578
December 18, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge
Case Summary
Michael Vicars-Goings appeals the sentence imposed upon the revocation of his
probation. We affirm.
Issue
Vicars-Goings raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court
properly ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of
Correction (“DOC”).
Facts
In 2009, Vicars-Goings pled guilty to several charges filed under different cause
numbers including two counts of Class D felony receiving stolen property, Class D
felony possession of methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of a controlled
substance, and two counts of Class D felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic
violator. For one of the receiving stolen property charges, Vicars-Goings was sentenced
to two years executed. For the possession charges, Vicars-Goings was sentenced to two
years, with eighteen months executed and six months suspended, and these sentences
were ordered to run concurrently. For the three remaining charges, Vicars-Goings was
sentenced to two years, with eighteen months executed and six months suspended. Other
than the possession charges, the sentences were ordered to be served consecutively for a
total sentence of ten years, with eight years executed and two years suspended.
At some point, Vicars-Goings began serving his suspended sentence on probation.
In August 2012, December 2012, and January 2013, Vicars-Goings had positive drug
screens for methamphetamine. In February 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke his
2
probation. In the meantime, he was sent to a residential treatment facility, but he left
before completing the program.
Twice in May 2013 and once in June 2013, Vicars-Goings tested positive for
methamphetamine, and the State filed another petition to revoke his probation. In July
2013, Vicars-Goings was ordered to be evaluated for placement in a sober living
program. He completed the program, but it was deemed unsuccessful because he owed
money. Thereafter, he failed to successfully complete another program and missed three
appointments with his counselor in December 2013.
In May 2014, a probation revocation hearing was held, and the trial court revoked
Vicars-Goings’s probation. The trial court ordered him to serve the remainder of his
suspended sentence in the DOC. He now appeals.
Analysis
Vicars-Goings argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him
to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC as opposed to an alternative
program where he could address his addiction and mental health issues. Upon the
revocation of probation, the trial court may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or
without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary
period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; and (3) 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). A trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation
violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,
188 (Ind. 2007).
3
Vicars-Goings argues that he was an addict and suffered mental health issues,
which were exacerbated by his inability to afford medication. Although there was
evidence that he suffered mental health issues and could not afford medication, as the
trial court recognized, he was given the opportunity to help himself during the previous
eighteen months of his probation but was not successful. Because Vicars-Goings was
repeatedly allowed to participate in drug treatment programs before his probation was
actually revoked, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering
him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC.
Conclusion
Vicars-Goings has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering
him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. We affirm.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
4