MEMORANDUM DECISION
Oct 09 2015, 9:23 am
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
Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller
Noblesville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Karl M. Scharnberg
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Michael Percifield, October 9, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A02-1502-CR-89
v. Appeal from the Hamilton County
Superior Court;
The Honorable Steven R. Nation,
State of Indiana, Judge;
Appellee-Plaintiff. 29D01-1004-FC-36
May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1502-CR-89 | October 9, 2015 Page 1 of 4
[1] Michael Percifield appeals the court’s imposition of the remainder of his
suspended sentence for his violation of probation, asserting the court’s decision
was an abuse of discretion.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On April 8, 2010, Percifield was charged with Class C felony intimidation 1 and
Class D felony pointing a firearm. 2 Percifield agreed to plead guilty to pointing
a firearm in exchange for the State dismissing the intimidation charge. The
court accepted that agreement, convicted Percifield of pointing a firearm, and
sentenced Percifield to three years in the Department of Correction, with 90
days executed and the remaining 1,005 days suspended to probation.
[4] While on probation, Percifield fled the scene of an accident resulting in death,
which is a Class C felony. 3 The State filed a petition alleging violation of
probation based on his new conviction. The court ordered Percifield to execute
the remaining 1,005 days of this sentence consecutive to his new sentence for
leaving the scene of an accident.
1
Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1(a)(1) (2014).
2
Ind. Code § 35-47-4-3(b) (2014).
3
Ind. Code § 9-26-1-1 (2014). Following his guilty plea, a Marion County court sentenced Percifield to four
years for that offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1502-CR-89 | October 9, 2015 Page 2 of 4
Discussion and Decision
[5] If a trial court finds that a person has violated probation before termination of
the probationary 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(h)(3). We review a trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion.
Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
[6] Percifield contends the court’s imposition of his entire suspended sentence was
an abuse of the trial court’s discretion because this was his first probation
violation. As a benefit of the plea agreement Percifield entered, the State did
not pursue prosecution of Class C felony intimidation. The State was
compassionate by providing a plea, and the trial court was lenient by ordering
most of his sentence be served on probation. While on probation, Percifield left
the scene of an accident which resulted in the death of his uncle and uncle’s
girlfriend. (Confidential App. at 194. 4) Percifield did not call the police or turn
himself in.
[7] From 1997 to 2006, Percifield was convicted of several offenses: Class A
misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class A misdemeanor operating while
intoxicated, Class C misdemeanor illegal consumption, and Class C felony
battery by means of a deadly weapon. (Id. at 193-94). In light of Percifield’s
4
Pursuant to Ind. Administrative Rule 9(G), certain documents are to be excluded from public access and
placed on green paper in a Confidential Appendix.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1502-CR-89 | October 9, 2015 Page 3 of 4
continued criminal behavior after being given leniency by the trial court, we
find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order that Percifield serve 1,005
days of his previously suspended sentence after his first violation of probation.
See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (court has the discretion to order defendant to serve
the remainder of a suspended sentence if defendant violates probation).
Conclusion
[8] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.
[9] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A02-1502-CR-89 | October 9, 2015 Page 4 of 4