Damon L. Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
02A05-1603-CR-635
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 26, 2017Background
- Damon L. Taylor pled guilty to Level 6 felony domestic battery with a prior and Level 6 battery on a person under 14; one-year sentence was suspended on the prior-battery count and ordered consecutive to a 183-day executed term. A no-contact order and completion of a Batterers Intervention Program at the Center for Nonviolence were conditions of probation.
- Taylor was released to probation on September 7, 2015; the State filed a petition to revoke on November 18, 2015 alleging failure to report and failure to complete the Batterers Intervention Program.
- At an initial hearing Taylor claimed a scheduling error and was returned to supervision and ordered to complete the program; counsel was later appointed and the revocation hearing was continued to accommodate an intake appointment.
- At the January 29, 2016 intake Taylor behaved loudly and aggressively, refused to admit acts of violence, and staff concluded admitting him would be unsafe for other participants; the Center refused to enroll him.
- The trial court found by a preponderance that Taylor violated probation (failure to complete the required program) and revoked his suspended one-year sentence, ordering execution of the full suspended term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylor violated a condition of probation by failing to complete the Batterers Intervention Program | Taylor’s refusal to engage and aggressive conduct at the intake showed noncompliance; the Center’s refusal meant he could not complete the court-ordered program | Taylor argued scheduling errors and that he attempted to attend intake; his conduct did not warrant revocation | Court held Taylor violated probation because his behavior made program completion impossible and posed safety concerns |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support revocation (standard of proof) | State asserted it met the preponderance standard through Center staff testimony and records | Taylor contended evidence was insufficient and prior scheduling confusion mitigated noncompliance | Court applied the preponderance standard, reviewing evidence favorable to judgment, and found substantial evidence supported revocation |
| Whether revocation of probation was an abuse of discretion | State argued revocation was appropriate given risk and inability to complete treatment | Taylor argued revocation and full execution of suspended sentence was excessive given prior scheduling error and attempts to comply | Court found no abuse of discretion in revoking probation based on safety concerns and refusal to admit him into treatment |
| Whether ordering execution of the entire suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion | State urged execution was appropriate because probation conditions were violated and treatment refusal indicated ongoing risk | Taylor argued full execution was disproportionate to the violation | Court held executing the entire suspended sentence was within discretion and not clearly against facts and circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (single condition violation suffices for revocation)
- Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2014) (review of sufficiency of evidence for revocation looks only to evidence favorable to judgment)
- Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (revocation proper where required treatment was not completed and protective conditions were violated)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing/sanction choices)
- Williams v. State, 883 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (no abuse of discretion in executing full suspended sentence when probation conditions were violated)