MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 26 2020, 10:01 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 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Courtney Staton
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William R. Simpkins, May 26, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2990
v. Appeal from the Jefferson Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael J.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Hensley, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
39D01-1806-F6-597
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] William Simpkins (“Simpkins”) appeals the revocation of his probation,
arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve part of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 1 of 6
his previously suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Simpkins
to serve part of his previously suspended sentence.
Facts
[3] In June 2018, the State charged Simpkins with Level 6 felony domestic battery
and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. In September 2018, Simpkins
entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty to the Level 6 felony domestic
battery in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the misdemeanor battery charge.
The parties also agreed that Simpkins would receive a sentence of “24 months,
all suspended except for time served” and 522 days on supervised probation.
(App. Vol. 2 at 24). The trial court accepted Simpkins’ guilty plea and entered a
sentence pursuant to the plea agreement.
[4] A few months later, in February 2019, the State filed a notice of probation
violation, alleging that Simpkins had violated his probation by testing positive
for methamphetamine and amphetamine. Simpkins was arrested and then
released on bond. Simpkins failed to appear for a March 2019 hearing and an
April 2019 hearing, and the trial court issued a warrant. Simpkins appeared at
a subsequent hearing, and the trial court allowed Simpkins to remain out on
bond.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 2 of 6
[5] In May 2019, the trial court held a probation revocation hearing, during which
Simpkins admitted that he had violated probation as alleged. The trial court
allowed Simpkins to remain on probation and extended his probationary period
by six months with the condition that he complete an intensive outpatient
program.
[6] Shortly thereafter, in August 2019, the State filed a second notice of probation
violation, which it later amended in September 2019. In this September 2019
probation violation notice, the Stated alleged that Simpkins had violated his
probation by: (1) refusing to submit to a urinalysis screen on July 9, 2019; (2)
failing to attend a scheduled meeting with probation on August 6, 2019; (3)
being discharged from Centerstone Recovery Center (“CRC”) on August 29,
2019 because he had tested positive for methamphetamine while in CRC and
had supplied other CRC clients with methamphetamine; and (4) failing a
twelve-panel drug screen for methamphetamine and amphetamine at CRC on
August 29, 2019.
[7] The trial court held a probation revocation hearing in November 2019.
Simpkins admitted that he had violated his probation under all the allegations
contained in the September 2019 revocation petition, except for allegation (3).1
The State presented testimony to support allegation (3). The trial court
determined that Simpkins violated his probation and ordered that “all but one
1
Simpkins admitted that he had tested positive for drugs in CRC but denied that he had supplied
methamphetamine to other clients.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 3 of 6
hundred [and] eighty (180) days of [Simpkins’] suspended sentence be revoked
and served at the Jefferson County Jail[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 39). The trial court
ordered the remaining 180 days of probation to be terminated as unsuccessful.
Simpkins now appeals.
Decision
[8] Simpkins does not challenge the trial court’s determination that he violated
probation. Instead, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
ordering him to serve part of his previously suspended sentence and that it
should have left him on probation and returned him to a drug treatment
program. We disagree.
[9] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which
a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.
2007). The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke
probation if the conditions are violated. Id.; see also IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(a).
Indeed, violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke
probation. Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Upon
determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the trial
court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended
at the time of initial sentencing.” IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). “Once a trial
court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration,
the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.”
Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. “If this discretion were not given to trial courts and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 4 of 6
sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less
inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Id. As a result, we review a
trial court’s sentencing decision from a probation revocation for an abuse of
discretion. Id. (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005),
trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.
[10] The record reveals that the trial court had a sufficient basis for its decision to
order Simpkins to serve part of his previously suspended sentence. Here, within
a few months of being placed on probation, Simpkins admitted that he had
violated probation—the first time—by using methamphetamine. The trial court
showed Simpkins leniency and allowed him to remain on probation. The trial
court extended his probation and ordered him to complete an intensive
outpatient program. Simpkins, however, squandered this opportunity. Within
three months, the State filed a second probation revocation petition and then an
amended petition, alleging that Simpkins had violated probation by testing
positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine, failing to report for a drug
screen, and failing to meet with his probation officer. Simpkins admitted that
he had violated these conditions of probation. Based on the record before us,
we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering
Simpkins to serve part of his previously suspended sentence. For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm the trial court’s partial revocation of Simpkins’ probation
and imposition of all but 180 days of his previously suspended sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 5 of 6
[11] Affirmed.
Bradford, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2990 | May 26, 2020 Page 6 of 6