MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing May 31 2017, 9:00 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Christopher L. Richards, May 31, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A04-1611-CR-2660
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1011-FA-3721
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] Christopher Richards appeals the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation
and impose the remainder of his previously-suspended sentence. We affirm.
Issues
[2] The issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
revoked probation and ordered Richards to serve the entirety of his suspended
sentence in prison.
Facts
[3] In 2010, the State charged Richards with dealing in methamphetamine, a Class
A felony. Pursuant to a written plea agreement, in 2011, Richards pled guilty
to the lesser-included offense of dealing in methamphetamine, a Class B felony.
On October 21, 2011, the trial court sentenced Richards to ten years: six years
executed in the Indiana Department of Correction, two years served as a direct
commitment to work release, and two years suspended to probation.
[4] Richards began probation on April 21, 2015. As a condition of probation,
Richards was not allowed to possess or use any controlled substances, unless
prescribed by a licensed medical practitioner. Richards’s probation officer,
Amber Loudermilk, filed a motion to modify the conditions of probation on
February 3, 2016, requesting that Richards complete alcohol and drug
counseling/treatment through Choices Consulting Center. The trial court
granted this request.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 2 of 6
[5] The State filed a notice of probation violation on April 8, 2016, alleging that
Richards tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines on twenty-
two separate occasions. During the revocation hearing, on October 18, 2016,
Richards admitted he violated the terms of probation by testing positive for
methamphetamine on all of the occasions alleged in the petition to revoke his
probation. The trial court accepted his admission and found that Richards
violated the terms of his probation.
[6] At sentencing, the trial court heard testimony from Loudermilk, who testified
that she attempted to have Richards arrested in April of 2016. However,
Richards fled her office upon seeing her. Richards was not apprehended until
September of the same year. Richards testified that he was living with his
mother and working part time when he was arrested in September. Richards
stated that his mother was sick, and during his stay, he helped her administer
diabetes treatments and helped his mother with expenses. Richards stated that
he was clean for about two-and-a-half weeks prior to his arrest and had been
attending Narcotics Anonymous meetings when he had time. After the close of
evidence and argument, the trial court revoked probation and imposed the
remainder of his previously-suspended two-year sentence.
Analysis
[7] Richards contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his
probation and ordered that he serve the remainder of his previously-suspended
two-year sentence in prison.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 3 of 6
[8] Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) provides that, after revoking probation,
the trial court may “order execution of all or part of the sentence that was
suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Probation is a favor granted by the
State, not a right to which a defendant is entitled. Sparks v. State, 983 N.E.2d
221, 224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The decision to revoke probation lies within the
sound discretion of the trial court. Id. “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 v. State, 878 N.E.2d
184, 188 (Ind. 2007). We therefore review revocation of probation and the
subsequent sentencing decision for abuse of discretion. Sparks, 983 N.E.2d at
224. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the
logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d
614, 616 (Ind. 2013).
[9] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Sparks, 983 N.E.2d at 224 (citing
Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008)). First, the court must make a
factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation occurred. Id.
Second, if a violation is found, the trial court must determine whether the
violation warrants revocation of probation. Id. If the probationer admits to
violating probation, the court only needs to determine whether the violation
warrants revocation; however, the probationer must be given an opportunity to
provide mitigating evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant
revocation. Id. If the trial court’s finding of a violation is supported by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 4 of 6
substantial evidence of probative value, then we will affirm the revocation of
probation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[10] A trial court is not required to issue a detailed sentencing statement when
reinstating a portion of an already imposed sentence. Berry v. State, 904 N.E.2d
365, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Also, the trial court need not issue a written
statement indicating that it considered alternatives to incarceration. Castillo v.
State, 67 N.E.3d 661, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) trans. denied. There is no due
process requirement that a statement of reasons for sanctions imposed,
following revocation of probation, be provided. Id.
[11] Richards contends that the trial court should have placed him in a less
restrictive environment, but there is no requirement that the trial court consider
alternatives. Richards admitted to repeatedly relapsing and has been placed in
various drug treatment programs. He also attempted to avoid arrest for several
months. The trial court stated that it had run out of options and that, at the
very least, Richards would be given the opportunity to reflect on his addiction
while serving the remainder of his sentence in prison. Richards does not argue
that the trial court was required to state specific reasons for imposing the
sanction. He only contends that his incarceration would result in “significant
hardship to his mother, who had no one else to care for her.” Appellants Br. p.
7. The trial court, however, acknowledged his mother’s condition and
concluded that his continued use of methamphetamines does not benefit her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 5 of 6
[12] After arguments and evidence had been presented, the trial court ordered what
it believed would be the appropriate sanction given the circumstances. We
cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the
remainder of Richards’s two-year sentence to be served in prison.
Conclusion
[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the remainder of a
previously-suspended sentence to be served in prison, instead of a less restrictive
environment. We affirm.
Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1611-CR-2660| May 31, 2017 Page 6 of 6