Robert A. Peterson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
16A04-1706-CR-1335
Ind. Ct. App.Oct 30, 2017Background
- Peterson pleaded guilty in 2012 to dealing in methamphetamine (Class B felony) and was sentenced to 12 years with 6 years suspended to probation.
- While on probation, Peterson was charged and later convicted (in a separate case, F4-69) of two felony counts arising from discharging a firearm toward a vehicle.
- The State filed a petition to revoke Peterson’s probation after those convictions.
- At the revocation hearing the trial court found Peterson violated probation and ordered execution of the full six-year suspended portion of his sentence.
- Peterson appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the full suspended sentence without adequately weighing mitigating factors (his new 28-year sentence, completion of a community transition program, and two years of successful probation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering execution of the full suspended sentence after revoking probation | State: Trial court properly revoked probation and may execute suspended sentence after a violation | Peterson: Court abused discretion by not giving weight to mitigating factors (new long sentence, program completion, two years on probation) | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court may execute suspended sentence upon finding violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary; court may use any of the statutory sanctioning options)
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for probation revocation is abuse of discretion and two-step process)
- Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (single probation violation can support revocation)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (probationer must have opportunity to present mitigating evidence)
- Mitchell v. State, 619 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (revocation hearing considers execution of an already-imposed sentence, not imposition of a new sentence)
- Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (proper procedures allow court to order execution of suspended sentence after revocation)
- Patterson v. State, 659 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (discusses procedural aspects of probation revocation)