MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 29 2018, 10:52 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
John T. Wilson Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Michael G. Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Zachary Allen Fix, August 29, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-268
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas Newman,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48D03-1009-FB-422
Sharpnack, Senior Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-268 | August 29, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Zachary Allen Fix appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court after he
admitted to violating the terms of his community corrections placement. We
affirm.
Issue
[2] Fix raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering him to serve the balance of his previously-suspended
sentence.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2011, Fix pleaded guilty to burglary as a Class B felony and theft as a Class
D felony. In exchange for his guilty plea, the parties agreed that the executed
portion of his sentence would be capped at six years. The court accepted the
plea agreement and sentenced Fix to twenty years, with fourteen years
suspended.
[4] Fix was released from prison in 2012 and placed on probation. On October 23,
2012, the State filed a notice of violation of probation. During a January 7,
2013 hearing, Fix admitted he violated the terms of his probation by failing to
pay court costs and by using marijuana. The trial court revoked Fix’s probation
and ordered him to serve his previously-suspended sentence in the Indiana
Department of Correction (DOC).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-268 | August 29, 2018 Page 2 of 5
[5] In 2014, Fix filed a motion to reinstate probation. The court held a hearing and
denied his petition because he had committed misconduct while in the DOC.
In April 2015, Fix filed a motion to modify placement. The court denied Fix’s
motion in June 2015. Fix participated in several programs while at the DOC,
including purposeful incarceration.
[6] On October 4, 2016, Fix filed a motion to modify his sentence. The court held
a hearing and granted the motion, sending Fix to the Madison County
Community Transition Program. Fix completed the program and was placed
in Madison County’s Adult Day Reporting Program on March 14, 2017.
[7] On May 4, 2017, the community corrections program filed a notice of violation,
alleging Fix had failed to attend two scheduled appointments with his case
manager. On August 15, 2017, the community corrections program filed a
second notice of violation, alleging Fix violated the terms of his placement by:
(1) failing to pay fees; (2) testing positive for methamphetamine; (3) committing
a new offense, specifically battery on a public service officer, a felony; and (4)
being incarcerated in the Madison County jail.
[8] The court held an evidentiary hearing, during which it was revealed that Fix
had committed battery against two public service officers when they took him
into custody for failing a drug screen, causing the State to file a new criminal
case. It was further revealed that Fix had committed another battery during the
same span of time, against the mother of his child, resulting in yet another
criminal case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-268 | August 29, 2018 Page 3 of 5
[9] The trial court held a hearing, during which Fix admitted that he had used
methamphetamine and had committed battery as alleged in the notice of
violation. Based on Fix’s admissions, the court terminated his community
corrections placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously-
suspended sentence in the DOC, to be served consecutively to his sentences in
the battery cases. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[10] Fix contends the trial court should not have ordered him to serve the balance of
his previously-suspended sentence in the DOC, claiming that a term of
probation would allow him to obtain substance abuse treatment.
[11] Placement in either probation or a community corrections program is “‘a
matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’” State v.
Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d
547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). When a probationer violates a term of probation, the
court may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying
the conditions; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all
or part of the previously-suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (2015).
[12] A reviewing court treats a petition to revoke placement in a community
corrections program the same as a petition to revoke probation. McCauley v.
State, 22 N.E.3d 743, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. A trial court’s
sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of
discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-268 | August 29, 2018 Page 4 of 5
of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances. Id.
[13] Fix committed numerous serious offenses while in community corrections,
including using methamphetamine and committing multiple batteries. This
was not the first time Fix abused an alternative to incarceration because he used
marijuana while on probation in 2012. Fix has demonstrated that he will not
refrain from using controlled substances when not at the DOC. He can seek
substance abuse treatment while incarcerated. Based on this record, the trial
court acted well within its discretion in ordering Fix to serve the remainder of
his previously-suspended sentence at the DOC.
Conclusion
[14] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[15] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-268 | August 29, 2018 Page 5 of 5