Attorney for Appellant Attorneys for Appellee
Leanna Weissmann Steve Carter
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christopher C.T. Stephen
Deputy Attorney General
________________________________________________________________________
In the
Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________
No. 78S01-0503-CR-111
Joshua Sandlin
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
State of Indiana
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
_________________________________
Appeal from the Switzerland Superior Court Court, No. 78D01-9801-CF-004
The Honorable John Mitchell, Judge
_________________________________
On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 78A01-0402-
CR-061
_________________________________
March 17, 2005
Sullivan, Justice.
Defendant Joshua Sandlin pled guilty to robbery. In March, 1999, the
trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison, four years of which were
suspended during which Defendant was placed on probation. Defendant’s
probation began in February, 2001. While on probation, Defendant committed
five counts of burglary and theft for which he was convicted.
The State asked the original trial court to revoke Defendant’s
probation on grounds of the burglary and theft convictions. The trial
court ordered Defendant to serve the entire four years of the original
sentence that had previously been suspended.
Defendant appealed the trial court’s decision revoking his probation,
arguing that the trial court should have ordered him to serve a sentence
less than the entire four years of the sentence originally suspended
because of his youth and alleged lack of extensive criminal history. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding that the
trial court acted within its discretion. “While Sandlin is young, he has
amassed a number of criminal convictions in a relatively short span of
time, including robbery, reckless driving, and multiple counts of theft and
burglary, in spite of the fact that he has been incarcerated for a
significant part of his adult life.” Sandlin v. State, 812 N.E.2d 254
(Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (mem.).
In arguing that the trial court should have ordered him to serve less
than the entire four years of his suspended sentence, Defendant took issue
with the holdings of the Court of Appeals in two cases that had held that
where a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, it has no jurisdiction
to order the defendant to serve anything less than the entire amount of the
sentence originally suspended. Stephens v. State, 801 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004), rev’d, 818 N.E.2d 936; Pugh v. State, 804 N.E.2d 202 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2004), rev’d, 819 N.E.2d 375. Subsequent to the Court of Appeals
decision in this case, we held to the contrary. We concluded that a trial
court has the authority to order executed time following revocation of
probation that is less than the length of the sentence originally imposed.
Stephens, 818 N.E.2d at 942.
Although Defendant never explicitly says so, we infer from his
argument that he contends that the trial court in this case believed that
it was required to impose the entire amount of the sentence originally
suspended. If that had been the case, it might well be appropriate to
remand this case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of our
holding in Stephens.
We have reviewed the transcript of the probation revocation hearing
and find nothing in it indicating that the trial court believed it was
required to impose the entire amount of the sentence originally suspended.
Absent a fairly explicit statement to the contrary, we presume a trial
court is aware of its authority to order executed time following revocation
of probation that is less than the length of the sentence originally
imposed.
We grant transfer and summarily affirm the decision of the Court of
Appeals. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2).
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.