Craig Bright v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
27A05-1604-CR-887
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- In 2012 Bright pled guilty to burglary and four counts of forgery; sentenced to 8 years with 6 executed and 2 suspended to probation.
- Probation began August 13, 2015, with conditions including curfew (10:00 p.m.–6:00 a.m.), reporting, no illicit drugs, and submit to drug screens.
- September 30, 2015: Bright tested positive for amphetamines and admitted methamphetamine use; State moved to revoke probation. Court ordered one weekend in jail and a drug/alcohol assessment which Bright did not complete.
- Late 2015: Bright missed a probation meeting, had fresh needle marks and alcohol in his home, failed to appear for a jail-ordered drug screen, and violated curfew by leaving at ~1:30 a.m.; he later claimed he parked outside a treatment facility waiting to be admitted.
- January 2016: State filed petition to revoke probation; after a bifurcated hearing the trial court found violations and ordered Bright to serve the previously suspended two-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation and imposing suspended sentence | State: Bright violated multiple probation conditions (drug use, missed reporting, failed drug screen, curfew) justifying revocation | Bright: Violations were mitigated by his addiction and efforts to seek treatment (waiting to enter Cornerstone); court should have given weight to mitigation | Court: No abuse of discretion; violations proved by preponderance and single or multiple violations warrant revocation; ordering execution of suspended sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review and nature of probation revocation)
- Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (probation is a privilege with conditions in lieu of imprisonment)
- Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (probation revocation proven by preponderance of the evidence)
- Rosa v. State, 832 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (violation of a single probation condition can support revocation)
- Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (trial courts need not balance aggravating or mitigating factors when revoking probation)