MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Apr 13 2020, 10:07 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
John Kindley Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Tina L. Mann
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Craig L. Black, April 13, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2735
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael Rader,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D05-1508-F6-2083
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary
[1] In October of 2019, the trial court found that Craig L. Black had violated the
terms of his probation and revoked the remainder of his previously-suspended
four-year sentence. Black contends that the trial court abused its discretion in
doing so. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On February 24, 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, Black pled guilty to Level
6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a prior conviction and
admitted to being a habitual vehicular substance offender. The trial court
sentenced Black to an aggregate sentence of two years of home detention and
four years suspended to probation. Black successfully completed home-
detention and began serving his probation. On October 16, 2018, a notice of
probation violation was filed, alleging that Black had violated the terms of his
probation, and this notice was amended six times thereafter due to continued
violations. On October 22, 2019, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and
concluded that Black had violated the terms of his probation twelve times. In
concluding such, the trial court found the following allegations in the State’s
sixth amended notice of probation violation to be true:
B. [Black] failed to report for his scheduled supervision
appointment on 10.3.2018 at 5:45pm. A violation of Rule #11 of
[Black’s] standard terms of probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 2 of 6
C. On 10.22.2018, [Black] submitted a drug screen that returned
positive for amphetamine, Methamphetamine and Ethyl
Glucuronide and Ethyl Sulfate. A violation of Rule #8 of
[Black’s] standard terms of probation.
D. On 12.19.2018, [Black] submitted a drug screen that returned
positive for Amphetamine, Methamphetamine and Ethyl
Glucuronide and Ethyl Sulfate. A violation of Rule #8 of
[Black’s] standard terms of probation.
E. On 1.22.2019 at 9:00 am, [Black] failed to report to adult
probation for his supervision appointment that had been
rescheduled from 1.17.2019 at 9:00am. A violation of Rule #11
of [Black’s] standard terms of probation.
F. On 4.4.2019, [Black] reported to adult probation after being
released from jail by the court for his pending probation
violation. When [Black] reported to probation, he failed to
inform his probation officer that the court released him on his
own recognizance with the stipulation that he be drug screened
on the date of his release when he reported to adult probation. A
violation of the courts direct order and that of Rule #9 of
[Black’s] standard terms of probation.
G. On 4.9.2019, [Black] failed to report to adult probation. The
appointment was scheduled in person with [Black] on 4.4.2019,
the date that the court released him from jail. A violation of Rule
#11 of [Black’s] standard terms of probation.
H. On 4.16.2019, [Black] submitted to a drug screen that showed
positive for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine as well as
Ethyl Glucuronide and Ethyl Sulfate. A violation of Rule #8.
I. On 4.25.2019, [Black] tested positive for Amphetamine,
Methamphetamine, Ethyl Glucuronide and Ethyl Sulfate. A
violation of Rule #8.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 3 of 6
J. On 5.8.2019, [Black] tested positive for Amphetamine,
Methamphetamine, Ethyl Glucuronide and Ethyl Sulfate. A
violation of Rule #8.
K. On 5.24.2019, [Black] failed to report to adult probation “No
Show No Call” as had been rescheduled on 5.21.2019. A
violation of Rule #11.
L. [Black] failed to report to the adult probation department for
scheduled supervision appointments on 7.15.2019 and 7.19.2019.
Violations of Rule #11.
M. Black failed to report to Adult Probation on 9/10/2019.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 70–71. As a result, the trial court revoked the
remainder of Black’s previously-suspended sentence.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Black contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the
remainder of his previously-suspended sentence.
Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a
right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court
determines the conditions of probation and may revoke
probation if the conditions are violated. 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. If 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. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing
decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse
of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 4 of 6
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances.
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted).
[4] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking the
remainder of Black’s previously-suspended sentence. Black violated the terms of
his probation by consistently failing to report to probation appointments;
defying a direct court order; and screening positive multiple times for
methamphetamine, amphetamine, ethyl glucuronide, and ethyl sulfate. See
Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (concluding that a
violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation).
Moreover, Black’s criminal history demonstrates that he is a poor candidate for
probation and that he has not used past probation stints to conform his actions
to societal norms. Black has been convicted of five felonies and fourteen
misdemeanors and has had his probation revoked in prior cases. Black argues
that the trial court failed to properly credit him for not having committed a new
crime since 2014. While Black has not been convicted of a crime since 2014, all
of his positive drug screens indicate that he has not stopped committing them.
Black’s argument is also merely an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016),
trans. denied. Black has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion
by revoking the remainder of his previously-suspended sentence.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 5 of 6
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2735| April 13, 2020 Page 6 of 6