MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 28 2017, 10:23 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General
Brooklyn, Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Carol Ann Linzy, April 28, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1611-CR-2614
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1306-FA-1703
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1611-CR-2614 | April 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Carol Ann Linzy appeals the revocation of her probation. She argues that the
trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to serve the balance of her
sentence in prison rather than on community corrections. Because this is
Linzy’s third probation violation in this case and Linzy has been given multiple
chances to succeed outside of prison, we affirm the trial court.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In May 2014, Linzy pled guilty to three Class B felonies: aggravated battery,
burglary, and criminal confinement. The trial court sentenced her to an
aggregate term of ten years, with six years executed in the Department of
Correction and four years suspended to probation.
[3] Linzy was released from the DOC early due to her successful completion of the
CLIFF program and placed on probation. On three occasions thereafter, Linzy
admitted violating her probation. On the first occasion, Linzy was discharged
from Freebirds Solution Center, a sober-living facility, on November 26, 2015,
twenty-three days after starting her term of probation. Linzy admitted violating
her probation, and in March 2016 the trial court sentenced her to time served
and added probation conditions.
[4] On the second occasion, during March and April 2016 Linzy used
methamphetamine, Xanax, marijuana, and other controlled substances. She
also failed to report to probation, take drug screens, and attend daily AA/NA
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1611-CR-2614 | April 28, 2017 Page 2 of 5
meetings. Linzy admitted violating her probation for a second time in this case,
and in May 2016 the trial court sentenced her to time served and added more
probation conditions, including ordering her to reside at Eagle Street House.
[5] On the third occasion, which led to this appeal, Linzy tested positive for
methamphetamine in July 2016 and synthetic cannabinoids in August 2016 and
was discharged unsatisfactorily from Eagle Street House in August 2016. Linzy
admitted violating her probation for a third time in this case, and a hearing was
held regarding disposition. The State asked for an executed sentence in the
DOC, while Linzy asked the trial court to place her on community corrections
instead of sending her to the DOC. The trial court ordered Linzy to serve the
balance of her sentence in the DOC:
Ms. Linzy, uh the original conviction back in ’14 was three (3)
violent B Felonies. Aggravated Battery, Burglary and
Confinement. Uhm, you did already complete CLIFF so I . . .
don’t know that you would be eligible for that again. We
modified you out based on you completing CLIFF and since
then you’ve done nothing but fail the programs that you’ve tried
here as well. . . . You did best while you were in D.O.C. and in
the CLIFF Program.
Tr. p. 15.
[6] Linzy now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1611-CR-2614 | April 28, 2017 Page 3 of 5
Discussion and Decision
[7] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine
that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State,
892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial
court must decide whether the violation warrants revocation of probation. Id.
Where, as here, a probationer admits to the violation, the court can proceed to
the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants
revocation. Id. A trial court’s sentencing decision for violating probation is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.
2007).
[8] Linzy contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her to the
DOC because “it is not uncommon for people battling addiction to relapse and
use again,” especially when they also have mental-health issues like she does.
Appellant’s Br. p. 7. Accordingly, she claims that the trial court should have
sentenced her to community corrections instead of the DOC.
[9] The trial court, however, specifically declined to place Linzy on community
corrections. It noted that Linzy had already violated probation twice in this
case. She failed multiple programs outside of jail, including treatment programs
at both Freebirds and Eagle Street House, and failed to report to probation, take
drug screens, and attend daily AA/NA meetings. Given the opportunities that
Linzy has been given in this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1611-CR-2614 | April 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5
ordering Linzy to serve the balance of her sentence in the DOC for violating
probation for a third time in this case.
[10] Affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1611-CR-2614 | April 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5