MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Sep 28 2016, 8:36 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher L. Clerc Gregory F. Zoeller
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Anthony E. Jeffares, September 28, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
03A01-1605-CR-1176
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Stephen R.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Heimann, Judge.
Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1110-FB-5718
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Anthony E. Jeffares contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to the balance of his eighteen-year 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 April 2012, Jeffares pled guilty to Class B felony burglary. The trial court
sentenced him to eighteen years, with three years suspended. In March 2014,
the trial court modified Jeffares’ sentence. It placed him in the Community
Transition Program for approximately three months. Upon completion of the
program, the court suspended the balance of his sentence and placed him on
probation for five years.
[3] Jeffares completed the program and started probation in June 2014. Six months
later, in November 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke Jeffares’ probation
for using heroin and failing to pay fees. Jeffares was referred to an intensive
outpatient program (IOP), but he never completed the treatment. Jeffares
admitted violating his probation, and the trial court sentenced him to nine
months in jail and extended his probation.
[4] In March 2016, the State filed a second petition to revoke Jeffares’ probation for
testing positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, committing the new
crimes of possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and paraphernalia, and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 2 of 6
failing to pay fees. Jeffares admitted violating his probation and asked to be
placed back in community corrections. Jeffares’ probation officer testified that
the probation department had tried “everything that we have” with Jeffares,
including “our most intensive programming with work release,” yet Jeffares
“continues to use drugs.” Tr. p. 10. The probation officer concluded, “we just
don’t have anything more that we can offer him, sadly.” Id. The trial court
revoked Jeffares’ probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his
eighteen-year sentence (with credit of 1137 actual days), to be served in prison.
The court reasoned:
Prior to incarceration, your choice of drugs was
methamphetamine or opiates. You described your typical day as
follows: get high or find a way to, did the current Burglary to
support your drug habit. You reported, I’m not a career
criminal. I just have a bad drug problem. Hope I can work on
this. . . .
So you’re 53 and I look back through your criminal history,
dating back to 1979, as a juvenile. All sorts of charges. . . . Then
as an adult and you had treatment opportunities; rehab in ’82, ’85
Koala and Aftercare ’86 IOP and Aftercare. . . . Auto Theft back
in 2004; evaluation and follow recommendation of the
evaluation. But even after that treatment opportunity, admits to
violating probation by ingesting and testing positive for
marijuana in ’06; cocaine and marijuana in ’07. Sent you to
DOC.
*****
The State has already gone over what happened in this case.
You got in the [DOC], you got some treatment and now you’re
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 3 of 6
coming here and saying, oh, it wasn’t the right treatment; didn’t
get what I needed.
Your sentence was modified out and you were off of the
Community Transition Program on the 11th day of June, 2014.
In November of 2014 was the Petition to Revoke. Instead of
sending you back to prison, . . . you were put in jail, you were
given credit for it and you got out then on March 24, 2015 and
now here we are again.
You said what you need is . . . more help and that’s right, you
do. There’s no question about it. You do need more help. But
where you need help from is from yourself. That’s the one
person that needs to help you because there’s been all sorts of
other people who have tried and tried and tried. But until you
determine that you’re going to help yourself, no matter how
much other people try to help you, it’s not going to make a
difference.
Id. at 30-32.
[5] Jeffares 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:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 4 of 6
(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] Jeffares contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to
serve the balance of his eighteen-year sentence because he admitted violating
his probation (like a defendant who pleads guilty) and because he “made
contact with” an addictions program. Appellant’s Br. p. 8. The record shows
that Jeffares violated his probation (a second time) for, at the very least, testing
positive for drugs, which would have been relatively easy to prove without
Jeffares’ admission. In sentencing Jeffares to the balance of his eighteen-year
sentence, the trial court noted that he had been given multiple chances in this
case. First, Jeffares had his eighteen-year sentence modified after serving just
two years. Then, after violating his probation the first time for using drugs, he
was sentenced to jail instead of prison. In addition, the record shows that not
only has Jeffares been given treatment opportunities throughout his adult life,
he was given them in this case, too. Yet he failed to take advantage of them.
Given Jeffares’ failures to address his drug problems and his pattern of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 5 of 6
squandering the opportunities that he has been given, it was within the trial
court’s discretion to sentence him to the balance of his eighteen-year sentence
for violating his probation a second time.
[8] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 6 of 6