MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 21 2016, 8:40 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Lawrence M. Hansen Gregory F. Zoeller
Hansen Law Firm, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Noblesville, Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Eric Haralson, September 21, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
29A05-1604-CR-874
v. Appeal from the Hamilton Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Paul A. Felix,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
29C01-1009-FB-60
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Eric Haralson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing
him to three years of his previously suspended sentence for violating his
probation (for a second time) in this case. Finding no abuse of discretion, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2011, Haralson pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in a Schedule II
controlled substance and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a
license. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years, with six years executed
and six years suspended. The court ordered the last year of Haralson’s executed
sentence to be served on work release, followed by two years of probation.
[3] Haralson finished work release in October 2013 and started serving his two-year
probation term. In May 2014, the probation department filed a notice alleging
that Haralson violated his probation by committing a new offense, Class A
misdemeanor operating a vehicle without ever having received a license.
Haralson admitted violating his probation, and the trial court sentenced him to
forty days of his previously suspended sentence.
[4] Then, in October 2015, the probation department filed a second notice alleging
that Haralson violated his probation by being dishonest with his probation
officer about his drug and alcohol use, testing positive on two occasions for
illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine), and consuming
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 5
alcohol in violation of his CARE evaluation. A hearing was held, and
Haralson admitted violating his probation. Tr. p. 7-9. Haralson asked the trial
court to place him on community corrections. Haralson explained that
although he tested negative for drugs for a period of about eighteen months, he
“started indulging in drugs again” when he “ran into some old friends that [he
had] stopped hanging out with when [he] got out of prison.” Id. at 18. The trial
court revoked Haralson’s probation and sentenced him to three years of his
previously suspended sentence, to be served in prison. The trial court reasoned:
The Court placed [Haralson] on probation once he completed the
executed sentence and he violated probation previously [in this
case] by committing a new crime, to which he only received a 40
day jail sentence, 40 days of his previously suspended sentence
were executed. He was then placed back on probation. This is,
even though according to the Pre-Sentence Investigation the
Court received when the Defendant was sentenced that nearly
every single time he has ever been convicted before he has
violated his probation with at least one prior time, two prior
times where his probation was revoked. At the last sentencing
hearing I was told about the Defendant’s child. I considered the
fact that he had a child the last time he was here. The Court is
not going to consider again that he has a child. The Defendant
knew he had a child when he was smoking and using drugs, and
he smoked and used them anyway. The hearing today
essentially tries to suggest that the Defendant has relapsed due to
a drug problem. But what I heard today is that the Defendant
started hanging around friends. This was not about a relapse,
this was about hanging around the wrong people and then going
and doing the things that they were doing with them. It was not
about a need to have drugs and then finding them, it was about
hanging out with the wrong people. . . . I do not find Hamilton
County Community Corrections to be an appropriate sentence
here.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 5
Id. at 26-27.
[5] Haralson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine
that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State,
892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial
court must decide whether the violation warrants revocation of probation. Id.
If the trial court finds that the probationer violated a condition of probation, the
court has several options:
(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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(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(h). A trial court’s sentencing decision for violating
probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d
184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
[7] Haralson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to
three years of his previously suspended sentence for violating his probation
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 5
because he is “an addicted person suffering from relapse” and is “a father
seeking an opportunity to support his son.” Appellant’s Br. p. 12. He claims
the trial court should have sentenced him to community corrections instead.
[8] The trial court, however, specifically declined to place Haralson in community
corrections. It noted that Haralson had already violated probation once in this
case and that he had violated probation in other cases as well. As for
Haralson’s child, the trial court explained that it considered Haralson’s child
when it sentenced him to only forty days for his first probation violation, yet
Haralson violated his probation a second time. Finally, as for Haralson’s claim
that he only relapsed because of addiction, the trial court pointed to Haralson’s
own testimony that despite testing negative for drugs for a substantial period of
time, he began “indulging” in drugs again after he started hanging out with the
wrong people, not because of addiction. Accordingly, we find that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Haralson to three years of his
previously suspended sentence for violating his probation a second time in this
case.
[9] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A05-1604-CR-874 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 5