MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 10 2017, 9:10 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 ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bobby Collier, August 10, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
15A04-1703-CR-560
v. Appeal from the Dearborn
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sally A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. McLaughlin, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15D02-1511-F6-363
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 1 of 10
[1] Bobby Collier appeals the trial court’s order that he serve his previously-
suspended sentence. He raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether
the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his previously-
suspended sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 9, 2016, the trial court entered an Order on Plea, Judgment of
Conviction and Sentence which states that the parties presented a plea
agreement, Collier pled guilty, and the court entered judgments of conviction
for operating while intoxicated as a level 6 felony, and theft as a class A
misdemeanor. Collier was sentenced to concurrent terms of 910 days with 724
days suspended and 365 days with 179 days suspended to probation. The order
of probation required that Collier “[n]ot consume alcohol or illegal substances
or controlled substances without a prescription” and to “submit to testing for
same on request of Probation or Law Enforcement Officer” and that he abide
by all conditions of a Veterans Court Participant Agreement and successfully
complete Veterans Court. Appellant’s Appendix Volume 2 at 69.
[3] On April 26, 2016, Collier’s probation officer filed a Request for Veterans Court
Sanction Hearing alleging Collier failed to report for a drug screen as required,
and on May 2, 2016, the court ordered him to attend seven self-help meetings.
On May 26, 2016, the probation officer filed a Second Request for a Veterans
Court Sanction Hearing alleging that, by the terms of Veterans Court, Collier
was required to abide by a 10:00 p.m. curfew and that he arrived home forty-six
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 2 of 10
minutes late. On May 31, 2016, the court ordered him to complete eight hours
of community service at the VA in Cincinnati. On September 20, 2016, a
probation officer filed a Third Request for a Veterans Court Sanction Hearing
alleging that, by the terms of Veterans Court, Collier was required to submit
valid prescriptions within twenty-four hours and that he submitted to a urine
drug screen on September 13, 2016 and tested positive for the opiates of
hydrocodone and hydromorphone, and did not provide a valid prescription
until September 20, 2016. That same day the court ordered Collier to serve
thirty actual days on home detention.
[4] On November 3, 2016, Collier’s probation officer filed a Fourth Request for a
Veterans Court Sanction Hearing alleging he tested positive for alcohol on
October 27, 2016. On November 9, 2016, the probation officer filed an
Amended Fourth Request for a Veterans Court Sanction Hearing alleging
Collier tested positive for alcohol on October 27 and November 1, 2016. On
November 22, 2016, the probation officer filed a Second Amended Fourth
Request for a Veterans Court Sanction Hearing alleging Collier tested positive
for alcohol on October 27 and November 1, 2016, and failed to attend a
required court hearing on November 17, 2016. That same day the court
ordered that Collier have two days, or one day with good time credit, revoked
to the Dearborn County Law Enforcement Center. On January 3, 2017,
Collier’s probation officer filed a Fifth Request for sanction alleging that, by the
terms of Veterans Court, Collier was required to take all medications as
prescribed and that, on December 30, 2016, a field officer “conducted a pill
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 3 of 10
count and [Collier’s] Hydrocodone prescription was empty.” Appellant’s
Appendix Volume 2 at 123.
[5] On January 10, 2017, the State filed a Request for Southeastern Indiana
Veterans Treatment Court Termination Hearing alleging in part that on
December 30, 2016, a field officer conducted a pill count and Collier’s
hydrocodone prescription was empty; Collier advised the field officer that he
had flushed eighty to eighty-five hydrocodone tablets; on January 3, 2017,
Collier advised the field officer that he had been abusing his hydrocodone
prescription; on January 3, 2017, Collier did not appear in court and stated he
was in the hospital; upon further investigation Collier was seen in the
emergency department but also submitted to a drug and alcohol screen and
tested positive for alcohol; and on January 8, 2017, he failed to provide a drug
screen.
[6] On January 24, 2017, the court held a probation violation hearing at which
Collier admitted to the alleged violations. On February 14, 2017, a sentencing
hearing was held. Collier indicated that he attended the self-help meetings as
ordered; through his time in Veterans Court he attended multiple AA and NA
meetings; he was late for his curfew because he was at a birthday party for his
niece and lost track of time; he completed the eight hours of community service
as ordered; and there was a positive drug screen and he had a prescription for
the opiates but did not submit the prescription until later. He indicated he
completed the ordered thirty days of home detention. When asked about his
positive tests for alcohol on October 27 and November 1, 2016, he testified that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 4 of 10
several of his close family members including his grandmother had passed away
during the previous year and he “was kind of almost at the point of giving up.”
Transcript Volume II at 17. When asked if that was “when things started to
really go bad for [him] in terms of being successful with the program,” Collier
responded affirmatively. Id. When asked about his missed court hearing in
November, he replied he believed that was when he was in the hospital and that
he had fallen down that morning.
[7] Collier testified that he was not working, was waiting on disability and had filed
a disability claim a year earlier, had been participating in VA services for at
least six or seven years, and had been diagnosed with PTSD and two traumatic
brain injuries, and when asked if the injuries and PTSD “are all things that
extend from your time in the service,” he responded affirmatively. Id. at 19.
He also indicated his substance abuse history dated back as far as he could
remember and to his teenage years, that it was at its worst four or five years
earlier, and that Veterans Court had helped him. He testified he was the
chairperson of his AA classes and that his longest period of sobriety in recent
memory was probably ten months which probably occurred after entering
Veterans Court.
[8] Collier’s probation officer testified that she was aware that Collier has traumatic
brain injury and he had shown he was capable of showing up for drug screens
and appointments and submitting prescriptions. She testified that Collier “did
very well in phase I and a good portion in phase II minus the minor sanctions
that [sic] things just kind of escalated.” Id. at 27. She stated: “As I noted in the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 5 of 10
PSI, I think [Collier] said it the best himself. He just gave up. Um, he recalled
one (1) Court hearing where a statement was made and he said he just gave up.
He felt like he could drink and get away with it, um, and we wouldn’t catch
him and I think things just escalated.” Id. The officer testified that, since the
Veterans Court program started in 2013, there had been only three
terminations. When asked her recommendation, the officer stated:
Well I mean I don’t know how helpful home detention is going
to be for [Collier] in regards to um, fees and what not. You
know, he has been waiting on disability claim for a really long
time. I do know that to be true. So, I don’t know how helpful
that’s going to be for him. Obviously, he can’t do work release or
anything of the sort like that. So, I mean I think, normally our
recommendation when somebody is terminated is to the
Department of Corrections because we feel like we’ve given him
the services that we have to offer at this point and I do feel the
same way with [Collier].
Id. at 28-29.
[9] The court stated its concerns were that Collier “has voiced he’s just given up”
and “that the operating while intoxicated which is the underlying offense . . .
indicates that he left the scene of an accident, that he hit two . . . separate
telephone poles and . . . did not stop” and “so the other concern is . . . his
substance abuse left unchecked does affect community safety.” Id. at 33-34.
The court took the matter under advisement. On February 22, 2017, it entered
an order revoking Collier’s previously-suspended sentence, finding that, due to
the nature of the underlying offense and his inability to follow through with the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 6 of 10
required conditions of Veterans Court, community safety can best be addressed
through incarceration.
Discussion
[10] The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Collier
serve his previously-suspended sentence. Collier does not challenge the finding
that he violated his probation; instead, he argues the court abused its discretion
in ordering that he serve the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence and
asks this court to remand for resentencing. He contends that his violations were
characterized by the probation department as primarily minor sanctions, the
trial court’s reasoning was not fully supported by the facts, he had a valid
prescription at the time he tested positive for an opiate, and he had improved
during his time with the Veterans Court.
[11] The State maintains that the court did not abuse its discretion, that “Collier
repeatedly proved that he is not fit for the program or probation,” “[f]or each
violation, the court sanctioned Collier more severely than the last, but he was
undeterred,” the record supports the court’s conclusion that Collier poses a risk
to community safety, and that his history and attitude toward treatment gave
the court little choice but to revoke his suspended sentence. Appellee’s Brief at
8.
[12] Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides:
If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any
time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 7 of 10
is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one
(1) or more of the following sanctions:
(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without
modifying or enlarging the conditions.
(2) Extend the person’s probationary period for not more
than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was
suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
[13] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a trial court’s sentencing decisions for
probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard.
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The Court explained that,
“[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to
proceed” and that, “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and
sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less
inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Id. An abuse of discretion
occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances. Id. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in
conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution
of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the
evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
[14] The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) indicates that Collier was
convicted of theft in 1994, 1996, and 1997 and of operating a vehicle while
intoxicated endangering a person as a class A misdemeanor in 2012. He was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 8 of 10
convicted for operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a level 6 felony and theft
as a class A misdemeanor and ordered to participate in the Veterans Court
program in 2016. The PSI further states that Collier reported that he can recall
seeing pictures of himself intoxicated on the kitchen table at the age of five; his
father would often give him alcohol; he was regularly consuming alcohol by the
age of eleven; he was drinking heavy amounts of alcohol while in the military;
following the death of his son his drinking increased; he was prescribed pain
medication in 1991 and for fifteen years consumed between twenty and thirty
pills per day; he successfully completed a methadone clinic program in 2005;
and that following his discharge from the clinic he “started using pills again
here and there” and was drinking on a regular basis. Appellant’s Appendix
Volume 3 at 9. He also reported that he felt “like he was doing really good
during the first part of Veterans Court and then just gave up” and that he
“doesn’t want to go to prison but that it might be easier.” Id.
[15] The record reveals that Collier admitted that he violated the conditions of his
probation on several occasions. After a missed drug screen, the court ordered
seven self-help meetings. When he missed his curfew the court ordered eight
hours of community service, and when he tested positive for opiates and did not
timely provide a prescription the court ordered him to serve thirty actual days of
home detention. When he tested positive for alcohol twice and skipped a court
hearing, the court revoked two days of his suspended sentence. Collier also
admitted that a field officer conducted a pill count and discovered his
hydrocodone prescription was empty, that he stated he had flushed the tablets
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 9 of 10
and advised the officer he had been abusing his prescription, and that he later
failed to provide a drug screen. His probation officer testified he initially did
well in Veterans Court, then had minor violations, and then “things just kind of
escalated.” Transcript Volume 2 at 27. She testified that, as Collier had stated,
he “just gave up.” Id.
[16] Given these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its
discretion in ordering Collier to serve his previously-suspended sentence.
Conclusion
[17] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order that Collier serve his
previously-suspended sentence.
[18] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A04-1703-CR-560 | August 10, 2017 Page 10 of 10