MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 11 2019, 9:08 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.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Laura R. Raiman Attorney General
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP
Dawn Rauch
Madison, Indiana Certified Legal Intern
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Timothy Ford, September 11, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-662
v. Appeal from the
Bartholomew Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff James D. Worton, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
03D01-1406-FA-2497
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-662 | September 11, 2019 Page 1 of 4
Case Summary
[1] Timothy Ford appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to serve his six-year
suspended sentence in the Department of Correction for violating his probation.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2014, Ford pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in a narcotic drug. The trial
court sentenced him to twelve years, with eight years executed in the DOC and
four years suspended to probation. The court later modified Ford’s sentence to
six years executed in the DOC and six years suspended, with three years of
probation.
[3] In January 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Ford’s probation, alleging
that he failed to report for drug screens on “multiple occasions.” Appellant’s
App. Vol. II p. 98. An initial hearing was set for January 29. Ford, however,
failed to appear at the initial hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
Ford was arrested on the warrant one year later in January 2019. See 03D01-
1406-FA-2497.
[4] A fact-finding/dispositional hearing was held in February 2019. At the
hearing, Ford admitted that he violated his probation by not reporting for drug
screens. Tr. pp. 4, 6-7. According to Ford, he didn’t report because he didn’t
have a ride or money for the bus, which meant that he had to walk three hours
to get to the probation department. Id. at 8. The probation officer testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-662 | September 11, 2019 Page 2 of 4
the probation department’s recommendation was that Ford “execute the
balance of his sentence,” not so much because he failed to report for drug
screens but more so because of “what [h]as transpired since.” Id. at 11-12.
That is, the probation officer explained that after Ford failed to appear at the
initial hearing in January 2018, the probation department “hadn’t heard
anything from him” until he was arrested on the warrant in January 2019.1 Id.
at 12. The trial court ordered Ford to serve his six-year suspended sentence in
the DOC.
[5] Ford 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 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
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
1
In addition, the record shows that in January 2019 Ford was charged with felony resisting law enforcement
for a July 2018 incident. See 49G09-1901-F6-485. This charge appears to be pending.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-662 | September 11, 2019 Page 3 of 4
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] Ford admits that he violated his probation. He argues, however, that his
“violation was technical in nature” and therefore the trial court abused its
discretion by ordering him to serve his six-year suspended sentence in the DOC.
Appellant’s Br. p. 11. Accordingly, he asks us to “reinstate [his] probation.” Id.
at 12.
[8] Ford acknowledges that he pled guilty to dealing drugs, was ordered to undergo
drug screens, and then didn’t report for them. But what Ford does not
acknowledge is that when the State filed a petition to revoke his probation for
not reporting for drug screens, he failed to appear at the January 2018 initial
hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Ford was arrested on the
warrant one year later in January 2019. During that one-year period, Ford did
not contact probation. Based on Ford’s serious failures to abide by the rules of
probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Ford to serve
his six-year suspended sentence in the DOC rather than returning him to
probation.
[9] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-662 | September 11, 2019 Page 4 of 4