Tommy J. Sexton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
43A05-1703-CR-630
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 25, 2017Background
- In 2013 Sexton pled guilty to a Class B felony (failure to remain at the scene causing serious bodily injury) under a plea that capped executed time at 7 years and suspended 5 years to probation.
- He served 7 years in prison and began a 5-year term of formal probation in July 2015 with conditions including drug/alcohol evaluation and compliance with recommended treatment.
- KCADP and later Bowen Center reported multiple no‑shows and missed appointments; KCADP closed Sexton’s file after repeated failures to appear and not paying fees despite fee reductions.
- The State filed a verified petition to revoke probation in July 2016; Sexton admitted the violations in February 2017, explaining transportation and earlier lack of funds as reasons.
- At the revocation sentencing, the trial court found Sexton had available transportation at times, had scholarship/fee waivers available, and concluded the violations were not solely a money issue. The court ordered execution of 4.5 years of the previously suspended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing after probation revocation | State: court may execute suspended time because Sexton repeatedly failed to attend required treatment and often did not call | Sexton: missed appointments due to lack of money and transportation; he later paid fees and sought treatment | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion; evidence showed repeated no‑shows and available alternatives, so executing 4.5 years was permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 2012) (probation is discretionary grace; revocation review uses abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (abuse‑of‑discretion governs probation revocation sentencing)
- Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010) (State must prove violation and requisite state of mind when nonpayment is alleged; probationer must show inability to pay and bona fide efforts to pay)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (discusses burdens related to ability to pay in probation revocation context)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (court must consider alternatives to imprisonment when probation violation stems from inability to pay)