MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Mar 11 2015, 9:55 am
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.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Gregory F. Zoeller
Laura Raiman Attorney General of Indiana
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
Richard C. Webster
Madison, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Aaron M. Taylor, March 11, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
03A01-1410-CR-439
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court.
The Honorable Stephen R.
State of Indiana, Heimann, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff Cause Nos. 03C01-1306-FB-3400
03C01-1306-FB-3401
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Aaron Taylor appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues
that the trial court erred when it ordered the remainder of his suspended
sentence to be executed. Finding no error, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On November 2, 2009, Taylor pleaded guilty to class B felony burglary and
receiving stolen property.1 On December 1, 2009, the trial court sentenced
Taylor to fifteen years with eight years suspended for the burglary conviction
and imposed a two-and-one-half-year suspended sentence for the receiving
stolen property conviction. The two sentences were to be served consecutively.
[3] On or about March 30, 2013, Taylor was released from prison. He was
admitted to the Bartholomew County Community Corrections Program to
serve probation. On June 17, 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke
probation, alleging that Taylor had committed class D felony domestic battery
and class A misdemeanor domestic battery. On October 22, 2013, the State
filed an amended petition to revoke probation because Taylor had tested
positive for Suboxone, a controlled substance, and had failed to pay his court
ordered costs and fees.
[4] On September 15, 2014, the trial court held a hearing. At the hearing, Taylor
admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by using Suboxone and
1
Taylor was charged with burglary under cause number 03C01-1306-FB-3400. He was charged with
receiving stolen property under cause number 03C01-1306-FB-3401.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 2 of 5
failing to complete substance abuse treatment courses. He testified that he was
sorry for his behavior, that his use of Suboxone had been a relapse into
addiction, and that he knew that he needed substance abuse treatment. In
addition, Taylor’s probation officer testified that Taylor had “done okay on
probation,” and indicated that she did not recommend placing Taylor back in
prison. Tr. p. 6.
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took note of Taylor’s drug
problem. The trial court ordered Taylor to serve the remaining eight years of
his sentence at the Department of Correction (DOC), but also recommended
that Taylor be placed in a therapeutic community while serving his time at the
DOC. The trial court stated that it would “maintain jurisdiction over this case
to potentially modify [Taylor’s] sentence . . . to modify [Taylor] back out of the
Department of Corrections [sic] upon [Taylor’s] successful completion of [a]
therapeutic community.” Id. at 25. Taylor now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Taylor argues that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation and
executed the remainder of his suspended sentence. The decision to revoke
probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court. Reyes v. State, 868
N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for an abuse
of discretion. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider
only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the
evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 3 of 5
substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that
a defendant violated the terms of his probation, this Court will affirm the trial
court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at 639-40.
[7] Taylor argues that the trial court erred in imposing the “most extreme sanction
available.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. He admits that he has suffered from serious
drug abuse and that he had relapsed several times. However, he argues that he
has persevered and has still managed to better himself by obtaining his GED
and maintaining regular employment. In support of his argument, he points to
the testimony of his probation officer, who did not recommend that he be
returned to the DOC. Tr. p. 8. He also points out that the attorney for the
State stated that “it appears [Taylor’s] probation officer is willing to work with
him and give him the opportunity to attempt to rehabilitate himself outside of a
penal facility perhaps one last time.” Id. p. 24. Therefore, Taylor argues that
all parties agreed that he should not be returned to the DOC and contends that
the trial court should have placed him on work release rather than executing the
remainder of his sentence.
[8] However, evidence at the probation hearing showed that Taylor had been
unsuccessful in his attempts to rehabilitate himself. Taylor’s own testimony
revealed that he had relapsed several times. Id. at 15, 17. He admitted that he
had violated the terms of his probation and that he had used Suboxone. Id. at
6. In addition, while the State did recognize that Taylor’s probation officer was
willing to work with him, she also told the trial court that Taylor was “near the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 4 of 5
point that perhaps he’s in need of treatment that can best be provided at a penal
facility.” Tr. p. 24.
[9] Furthermore, the trial court was clearly mindful of Taylor’s substance abuse
problem. After looking at the evidence, including Taylor’s admission that he
had failed to complete a substance abuse program and had relapsed, the trial
court recommended that he be placed in a therapeutic community at the DOC.
Id. at 25. In addition, the trial court maintained jurisdiction of the case so that
it might monitor Taylor’s progress in a therapeutic community and consider
modification in the future. Id.
[10] As noted above, if we find there is substantial evidence of probative value to
support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of his
probation, we will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Woods,
892 N.E.2d at 639-40. Here, in light of the evidence and Taylor’s concession
that he did violate his probation, we find that there was substantial evidence of
probative value to support the trial court’s determination that Taylor violated
his probation.
[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1410-CR-439 | March 11, 2015 Page 5 of 5