Samuel Sutton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A02-1511-CR-1988
| Ind. Ct. App. | Aug 4, 2016Background
- Sutton pled guilty in 2004 to multiple offenses including two Class D battery, three Class D pointing a firearm, one Class C felony intimidation, one Class B possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, one Class A misdemeanor battery, and one Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
- On July 1, 2015, the trial court modified Sutton's sentence to time served in the DOC with 1,821 days suspended to probation and required completion of Madison County's Re-Entry Court program as a condition of probation.
- Through Re-Entry Court, Sutton was authorized to participate in work release.
- On August 26, 2015, Sutton failed to appear at a required Re-Entry Court review hearing and was found to have left the work release facility for a job interview, returning seven hours later, with a baggie in his underwear that appeared to contain K2/Spice.
- The State charged Sutton with possession of a synthetic drug and trafficking with an inmate; notices were filed to terminate Re-Entry Court and revoke probation; a hearing determined Sutton violated Re-Entry Court and probation, while a lab test for the substance was pending.
- At the sanctions hearing, the court revoked Sutton's probation and ordered him to serve the full 1,821 days remaining on his previously-suspended sentence, less credit for time served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering full suspension term served. | Sutton argues the lab results were not available and thus full revocation was inappropriate. | State contends revocation was warranted given Sutton's conduct and the sanctions were within the court's discretion. | No abuse of discretion; revocation and full-term service upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (probation is discretionary, not a right, with two-step revocation process)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (mitigating evidence required; automatic revocation constitutional concerns)
- Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. 2005) (invited waiver rule for continuances and related errors)
- Ware v. State, 859 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (continuance/statement of issues waiver when defendant contributes to harm)