MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Dec 05 2019, 7:14 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
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General
Madison, Indiana
Samantha M. Sumcad
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Scott M. Vaughn, December 5, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1585
v. Appeal from the
Dearborn Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff James Humphrey, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15C01-1108-FB-38
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Scott M. Vaughn appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to serve the
remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the Department of
Correction for violating his probation. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August 2012, eighteen-year-old Vaughn pled guilty to Class C felony escape,
Class D felony criminal confinement, Class D felony possession of a controlled
substance, Class D felony theft, and Class D felony auto theft (he was seventeen
at the time of the offenses but was tried as an adult). In exchange, the State
agreed to recommend an aggregate sentence of twenty years with eight years
executed and twelve years suspended to probation. The trial court accepted the
plea agreement and sentenced Vaughn accordingly.
[3] Vaughn was released from incarceration in May 2016. Three months later, in
September 2016, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that on
September 11 Vaughn consumed a controlled substance that wasn’t prescribed
for him and committed the offense of possession of paraphernalia. The State
later amended its notice to allege that Vaughn committed another offense on
September 11, possession of a syringe. Vaughn admitted these violations, and
the trial court ordered him to serve four years of his twelve-year suspended
sentence in the DOC.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[4] In February 2019, the State filed another notice of probation violation, alleging
that on February 5 he committed the offenses of Level 3 felony dealing in
methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a syringe, and Class C
misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Vaughn was convicted of these
offenses in an April 2019 jury trial and later sentenced to fourteen years. See
15D01-1902-F3-5. In May 2019, the probation-violation hearing was held in
this case, and the trial court found that Vaughn violated his probation.
[5] Vaughn’s dispositional hearing was scheduled for June 18; however, it was
moved up to May 30 due to “security issues with Mr. Vaughn” in the Dearborn
County jail. Tr. p. 22. At the hearing, the jail commander testified that
Vaughn had gotten into “a few disagreements with officers as well as inmates”
and “dug a hole in the padding of one of the cells.” Id. at 19-20. The jail
commander also testified about an incident that occurred the day before. That
is, Vaughn and another inmate got into a fight, and the other inmate had to go
to the hospital for his injuries, which included a “fracture to the left orbital.” Id.
at 21. The State asked the trial court to revoke Vaughn’s “remaining suspended
sentence.” Id. at 27. Defense counsel asked the trial court to consider the PSI
that was recently completed in 15D01-1902-F3-5. Using that PSI, defense
counsel highlighted that Vaughn was a young man (twenty-five years old) who
had “a lot still to go for in his life”; had the support of his wife and family; had
mental-health issues, including bi-polar disorder; “had no history of drug use or
drug abuse up until his incarceration period”; and, although unemployed at the
time of his arrest, was “willing to work.” Id. at 16, 17. In announcing its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 3 of 5
decision, the trial court explained that it was considering “all the matters
outlined in the [PSI],” that Vaughn had previously violated his probation in this
case (for which he was ordered to serve four years in the DOC), and “the
evidence presented here today regarding Mr. Vaughn’s behavior necessitating
that this hearing be moved in order to address [the] safety . . . and security
issues within the Law Enforcement Center.” Id. at 27-28. Given Vaughn’s
“history and the violence that has been described,” the court ordered him to
serve the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the DOC. Id. at
28; see also Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 210-11 (court’s written order noting that
it considered “evidence of the defendant’s behavior in the Dearborn County
Law Enforcement Center during the pendency of this matter and while
awaiting sentencing.”).
[6] Vaughn now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] Vaughn contends that the trial court should not have ordered him to serve the
remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC. Trial courts enjoy broad
discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, and
we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,
188 (Ind. 2007).
[8] Vaughn argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve
the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence because of the information
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 4 of 5
contained in his PSI, including his family support, mental-health issues, and
drug problems. At the dispositional hearing, defense counsel highlighted this
information for the trial court. And when the court announced its decision, it
specifically said that it was considering “all the matters outlined in the [PSI].”
Despite this evidence, the court found that in light of Vaughn’s previous
probation violation in this case and the “violence” committed by him in the
Dearborn County jail, it was ordering him to serve the remainder of his
suspended sentence. On appeal, Vaughn does not acknowledge the evidence
that was presented at the dispositional hearing regarding his behavior in jail or
that the trial court relied on this evidence in making its ruling. Given that
Vaughn violated his probation in this case in 2016, was ordered to serve four
years in the DOC, dealt in methamphetamine after being released from the
DOC, and then committed acts of “violence” while in jail awaiting disposition
in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering him to serve
the remaining eight years of his suspended sentence in the DOC.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1585 | December 5, 2019 Page 5 of 5