MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 04 2018, 9:37 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
Ronald K. Smith Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Muncie, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Daniel L. Jones, September 4, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-949
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marianne L.
Appellee-Plaintiff Vorhees, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
18C01-1507-F4-8
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-949 | September 4, 2018 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Daniel L. Jones appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to serve three years
of the previously suspended portion of his sentence in the Department of
Correction for violating his probation. Because Jones committed recurring
criminal offenses while on supervised probation, we find no abuse of discretion
and affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2015, Jones was charged with escape, a Level 4 felony; resisting law
enforcement, a Level 6 felony; and neglect of a dependent, a Level 6 felony. In
February 2016, Jones pled guilty to the escape charge and the State dismissed
the other charges. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court noted that Jones,
age twenty, had prior juvenile adjudications and adult convictions and was on
supervised probation when he committed the escape offense. Tr. pp. 8-9. The
trial court sentenced Jones to four years, with 304 days executed and 1156 days
suspended, and ordered him to serve three years on supervised probation.
[3] On December 12, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke Jones’s probation
alleging that he committed two new criminal offenses on November 24, 2017:
residential entry and criminal mischief. The next month, on January 30, 2018,
the State amended its petition alleging that Jones committed five new criminal
offenses on January 24, 2018: resisting law enforcement, possession of
methamphetamine, possession of a narcotic drug, leaving the scene of an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-949 | September 4, 2018 Page 2 of 4
accident, and operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. At the
fact-finding hearing, the trial court found that the State proved by a
preponderance of the evidence that Jones violated his probation “by
committing the offenses of residential entry and resisting law enforcement.” Id.
at 27.1
[4] At the dispositional hearing, Jones asked to be “released on GPS or house
arrest” and testified:
I have four kids and I know I’ve messed up in the past, but I
really want—need to get out to take care of my children. I know
that’s not an excuse, that I have children, but I just want to get
out to take care of my kids right now at this moment.
Id. at 32. The trial court ordered him to serve three years in the DOC.
[5] Jones now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a
factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually
occurred. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, the court
must determine if the violation warrants revocation of probation. Id. When a
probationer admits to the violation, the court can proceed to the second step
1
Jones later pled guilty to committing these two offenses in the underlying criminal cases.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-949 | September 4, 2018 Page 3 of 4
and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. Id. A probationer
who admits to the violation must be given an opportunity to offer mitigating
evidence suggesting the violation does not warrant revocation. Id. 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); Ripps v. State, 968
N.E.2d 323, 326 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[7] Jones concedes that he violated his probation. Appellant’s Br. p. 9. He argues,
however, that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve three
years in the DOC because he must take care of his four children. He asks to “be
restored to supervised probation.” Id. at 11.
[8] However, the trial court has already given Jones the chance to take care of his
children, and instead he continued committing criminal offenses. Jones was on
supervised probation when he committed the escape offense in 2015. After the
trial court sentenced Jones to supervised probation in 2016, he committed two
new criminal offenses. Notably, he committed the second of his new criminal
offenses shortly after the State filed the original petition to revoke his probation.
Therefore, considering his recurring criminal offenses while on supervised
probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Jones to serve
three years of the previously suspended portion of his sentence in the DOC
rather than returning him to probation.
[9] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-949 | September 4, 2018 Page 4 of 4