MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 29 2018, 8:44 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James A. Shoaf Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Columbus, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Rose Mary Boling, June 29, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-652
v. Appeal from the Bartholomew
Superior Court I
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D. Worton,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D01-1704-F6-2355
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-652 | June 29, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Rose Mary Boling appeals her sentence following the trial court’s revocation of
her probation. Boling presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether
the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve the balance of
her sentence in the Bartholomew County Jail.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In October 2017, Boling pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a syringe, as a
Level 6 felony. In exchange for her plea, the State dismissed one count of
possession of paraphernalia, as a Class C misdemeanor. The trial court
accepted Boling’s guilty plea and sentenced her to an aggregate term of one and
one-half years suspended to probation. As a condition of her probation, the
court ordered Boling in relevant part to notify the probation department of any
changes in her address within twenty-four hours and to report to the probation
officer at reasonable times “as directed.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 32. The
trial court also ordered Boling not to use or possess alcohol.
[4] On November 22, Boling contacted her probation officer and stated that she
would not be able to attend a previously-scheduled appointment because she
was ill. After Boling did not make an effort to reschedule the appointment, the
probation officer was unable to contact her about rescheduling because she did
not have a phone number or address for Boling. Accordingly, on January 4,
2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Boling’s probation. In that petition,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-652 | June 29, 2018 Page 2 of 5
the State alleged that Boling had violated the terms of her probation when she
failed to report to the appointment with her probation officer on November 22,
2017, and when she failed to provide her probation officer with an address. At
the time the State filed the petition, Boling’s whereabouts were unknown. The
trial court issued a warrant for her arrest, and Boling was later arrested on
February 3, 2018.
[5] On March 7, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke
Boling’s probation. At the hearing, Boling admitted to the alleged violations.
The court then revoked Boling’s probation and ordered her to serve the balance
of her one and one-half year sentence in the Bartholomew County Jail. This
appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Boling appeals the trial court’s order that she serve the balance of her previously
suspended sentence. Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion.
Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014). Upon finding that a
defendant has violated a condition of her probation, the trial court may “[o]rder
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) (2017). We review the trial court’s
sentencing decision following the revocation of probation for an abuse of
discretion. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 489 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). An abuse of
discretion occurs “only where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before the court. Robinson v.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-652 | June 29, 2018 Page 3 of 5
State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam). We will not reweigh the
evidence or reconsider witness credibility. Griffith v. State, 788 N.E.2d 835, 839-
40 (Ind. 2003). Rather, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the
trial court’s judgment to determine if there was substantial evidence of
probative value to support the court’s ruling. Id.
[7] Here, Boling asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her
to serve the balance of her previously suspended sentence because she testified
that she had missed the appointment on November 22, 2017, because she was
ill and that she had failed to provide an address because she was moving from
house to house. Boling also testified that she now had a place to live and is a
self-employed painter. Boling’s contentions on appeal amount to a request that
we reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.
[8] The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and was within
the court’s sound discretion. The trial court originally suspended the entirety of
Boling’s sentence. Then, just over one month into her probation, Boling failed
to appear at an appointment, failed to reschedule the appointment, and failed to
provide her probation officer with an address. And Boling’s probation officer
did not have any contact with Boling or know where Boling was from
November 22, 2017, until February 3, 2018. Further, Boling admitted that she
did not contact her probation officer during that time because she was using
alcohol. Thus, the court’s order that Boling serve the balance of her term is
supported by the record and well within the trial court’s discretion. We affirm
the court’s judgment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-652 | June 29, 2018 Page 4 of 5
[9] Affirmed.
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-652 | June 29, 2018 Page 5 of 5
Rose Mary Boling v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion