MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Mar 31 2020, 12:39 pm
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
Devon M. Sharpe Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Jenner & Pattison Attorney General
Madison, Indiana Jacob Kovalsky
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Howard Jackson, Jr., March 31, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2364
v. Appeal from the
Jefferson Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff Richard G. Striegel, Senior Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
39C01-1503-F4-227
Vaidik, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2364 | March 31, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Howard Jackson Jr. appeals the sanction imposed for his violation of probation.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In January 2016, Jackson pled guilty to Level 4 felony burglary and was
sentenced to four years, with 407 days executed (time served) and the
remaining 1,053 days suspended to community corrections as a condition of
probation. The court also ordered Jackson to pay his burglary victim $7,900 in
restitution. Jackson started community corrections that month.
[3] In April 2016, Jackson and community corrections filed an administrative
agreement in which Jackson admitted violating community corrections and
agreed to sanctions to remain in the program. Two months later, in June 2016,
community corrections filed a petition to revoke Jackson’s community
corrections and probation for testing positive for methamphetamine in April
and May 2016, getting charged with Level 6 felony auto theft in Switzerland
County in May 2016 (Jackson was later convicted in August 2017), and failing
to pay fees. In October 2016, community corrections filed an amended petition
to revoke, adding as allegations that Jackson testified positive for
methamphetamine in August 2016, failed to report to community corrections in
September 2016, and failed to report to substance-abuse treatment on numerous
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2364 | March 31, 2020 Page 2 of 5
occasions. In January 2017, community corrections filed a second amended
petition to revoke, adding as an allegation that Jackson had failed to maintain
contact with community corrections since a court appearance in November
2016.
[4] A fact-finding hearing was scheduled for March 2017, but Jackson failed to
appear. The trial court issued a warrant for Jackson’s arrest, and he was
arrested in August. At the October fact-finding hearing, the trial court found
that Jackson violated his probation based on his (1) positive “drug screens,” (2)
“failure to report,” (3) “non-compliance with court ordered programs,” (4)
“failure to pay fees,” and (5) auto-theft conviction in Switzerland County. See
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 82. At the November dispositional hearing, the
Court ordered Jackson to “enroll and participate in the Dearborn County
veteran’s court” and deferred disposition “pending completion or failure of
veteran’s court.” Id. at 80. Jackson started veteran’s court in December.
[5] It appears that Jackson did well in veteran’s court for more than a year. But in
April 2019, Jackson missed a group-therapy session and had to spend the
weekend in jail as a sanction. He was also sanctioned for driving without a
license. Then, in June 2019, Jackson brought someone else’s urine to his
veteran’s court drug screen and was arrested. The next month, Jackson was
convicted of Class B misdemeanor possession of a drug-screen interference
device and terminated from veteran’s court.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2364 | March 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5
[6] In September 2019, the trial court conducted the deferred dispositional hearing
based on the prior finding that Jackson violated his probation and Jackson’s
termination from veteran’s court. The burglary victim testified that Jackson
had not made any restitution payments to him. Jackson testified on his own
behalf, emphasizing that he had passed around 100 drug screens and was
employed while participating in veteran’s court and that he was two weeks shy
of completing veteran’s court when he relapsed. He asked the court to place
him in an in-patient drug-treatment program instead of prison. The court,
however, ordered Jackson to serve the remainder of his 1,053-day suspended
sentence (according to the State, approximately 864 days) in the Indiana
Department of Correction. The court explained that while it “certainly
believe[d] in more than one opportunity to correct criminal behavior and deal
with addiction,” Jackson had several opportunities. Tr. p. 32. In addition, the
court noted that Jackson had “made no meaningful effort to repay” the burglary
victim. Id.
[7] Jackson now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Jackson argues 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).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2364 | March 31, 2020 Page 4 of 5
[9] Jackson concedes that he “stumbled during the term of his probation”;
however, he notes that he “took many steps toward treating his drug
addiction,” including passing around 100 drug screens and being employed.
Appellant’s Br. p. 13. Based on these efforts, he asks us to give him an
“opportunity to complete [an] in-patient rehabilitation program.” Id. at 15.
[10] Here, the record shows that despite Jackson’s numerous and serious violations
of community corrections and probation (including a felony conviction for auto
theft), the trial court deferred disposition and allowed him to enroll in veteran’s
court. Although Jackson did well in veteran’s court for more than a year, he
violated the terms of that supervision in April 2019 by missing an appointment
and driving without a license. Then, in June, Jackson was arrested for trying to
falsify a veteran’s court drug screen by bringing a bottle of someone else’s urine
to his screen. The next month, Jackson was convicted of Class B misdemeanor
possession of a drug-screen interference device and terminated from veteran’s
court. Based on Jackson’s repeated criminal acts and other violations, the trial
court’s decision to order him to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence
in the DOC was not an abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm.
[11] Affirmed.
May, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2364 | March 31, 2020 Page 5 of 5