Rex A. Clark v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
03A01-1701-CR-119
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 26, 2017Background
- Rex A. Clark pled guilty to a Class C felony (escape) in Feb 2016; court sentenced him to 8 years with 1 year executed, 1 year direct commitment to community corrections, and 5 years suspended on probation with community corrections.
- Sentencing conditions included cooperation with alcohol/drug program and obtaining a substance-abuse evaluation.
- Clark admitted two earlier probation violations (methamphetamine soon after sentencing; later suboxone); court extended/continued probation both times.
- On Oct 14, 2016, probation officers obtained a saliva sample that tested positive for methamphetamine; a court-ordered retest at Clark’s expense also returned positive.
- At the revocation hearing Clark denied use and suggested accidental ingestion; probation officers and lab results were admitted without objection.
- The trial court found a probation violation, revoked probation, and ordered Clark to serve the suspended portion of his sentence in DOC with a recommendation for purposeful incarceration and possible future modification upon program completion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking probation | State: positive lab results and officers’ testimony show violation | Clark: he denied use; argued evidence insufficient because his denials carry weight | Court: No abuse; court may credit tests over defendant; evidence sufficient to find violation |
| Whether the court abused discretion by ordering execution of suspended sentence | State: court may execute suspended sentence after violation | Clark: ordering DOC sentence was excessive given his requests for community corrections or termination | Court: No abuse; third violation and pattern of drug use justified executing suspended sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (2007) (trial courts have broad discretion over probation decisions and sanctions)
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (2013) (standard for reviewing probation revocation and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (2007) (single probation condition violation is sufficient for revocation)
- Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (2005) (on review court considers evidence most favorable to judgment and will not reweigh credibility)