Antwain Starks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
69A01-1608-CR-1926
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- In Aug. 2015 Antwain Starks pled guilty in Ripley County to Level 6 felony (operating as a habitual traffic violator) and a Class A misdemeanor (false identity); court sentenced him to 910 days with 810 days suspended to probation and 100 days credit for time served.
- Probation prohibited committing any new crimes.
- In May 2016 the State alleged Starks violated probation by committing multiple Marion County offenses, including Level 5 escape and Level 6 strangulation; before the revocation hearing Starks was convicted of escape and strangulation in Marion County.
- At the time of the Marion County offenses Starks was on home detention for a separate Level 5 burglary in Hendricks County.
- At a July 27, 2016 revocation hearing Starks admitted the violations, offered family-related mitigation, and the court found his criminal history an aggravator; the court revoked probation and ordered Starks to serve 730 days of his suspended sentence (with 57 days good-time credit).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Starks to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence after probation revocation | The State argued revocation and execution of suspended time was proper after Starks admitted committing new felonies while on probation and home detention | Starks asked for leniency based on family responsibilities and employment and challenged the revocation sentence as an abuse of discretion | Court affirmed: revocation and imposition of 730 days was not an abuse of discretion given admission, convictions while on probation/home detention, and his criminal history |
Key Cases Cited
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (standard of review on probation revocation — consider evidence most favorable to judgment)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard described)
- Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (a single probation violation can support revocation)
- Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (probation revocation appropriate where new crimes were committed while on probation)