Duane Riddle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Jan 19 2021, 8:38 am

the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK estoppel, or the law of the case. Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Christopher T. Sturgeon Theodore E. Rokita Clark County Public Defender Office Attorney General of Indiana Jeffersonville, Indiana Steven J. Hosler Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Duane Riddle, January 19, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1479 v. Appeal from the Clark Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Bradley B. Jacobs, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 10C02-1901-F5-17 10C02-1903-F2-5

Bradford, Chief Judge Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 1 of 6

Case Summary [1] Duane Riddle pled guilty to a number of criminal offenses under two separate

cause numbers on April 23, 2019. Riddle was sentenced to an aggregate nine-

year term, all of which was suspended to probation contingent on his

participation in Veteran’s Court programing. Pursuant to the terms of his plea

agreement, the entire nine-year sentence would be revoked and ordered

executed in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) if Riddle’s participation in

Veteran’s Court was terminated. [2] Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court was terminated on November 26,

2019, and the State filed a petition to revoke probation on February 22, 2020.

The trial court subsequently found that Riddle had violated the terms of his

probation and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement. On

appeal, Riddle contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that

the entire nine-year sentence be executed in the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On April 23, 2019, Riddle entered into a plea agreement under the terms of

which he pled guilty to Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine under

cause number 10C02-1901-F5-17 (“Cause No. F5-17”) and Level 4 felony

possession of methamphetamine and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle

with an ACE of .08 or greater under cause number 10C02-1903-F2-5 (“Cause

No. F2-5”). Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, Riddle was sentenced

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 6

to an aggregate nine-year sentence. The suspension of his sentence was

contingent on Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court. The plea agreement

expressly stated that the entire suspended sentence “shall be executed in the

[DOC] if [Riddle’s] participation in [Veteran’s] Court is voluntarily or

involuntarily terminated.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. Riddle initialed this

portion of the plea agreement, expressly affirming that “the total sentence shall

be executed” in the DOC if he failed to successfully complete the Veteran’s

Court program. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. [4] On April 23, 2019, Riddle was transferred to Veteran’s Court. Despite some

initial progress, Riddle failed drug screens on September 4 and 22, 2019. Riddle

was subsequently ordered to participate in a detox program at The Healing

Place from September 24, 2019 until September 30, 2019. [5] On October 1, 2019, Riddle informed his Veteran’s Court case manager that

there were no beds available at The Healing Place. His case manager instructed

him to return to The Healing Place for a different program. Riddle, however,

did not report back to The Healing Place. Riddle also stopped attending

Veteran’s Court sessions after October 1, 2019. Riddle later stated that he did

not attend further Veteran’s Court sessions or go to The Healing Place because

a friend told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. Riddle’s participation

in Veteran’s Court was terminated on November 26, 2019. [6] The State filed a petition to revoke probation on February 22, 2020. Riddle

admitted to violating probation on June 26, 2020. The trial court revoked

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 6

Riddle’s probation and sentenced him, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ plea

agreement, to an aggregate nine-year term in the DOC. Riddle was also

recommended for the Recovery While Incarcerated program at the DOC.

Riddle subsequently filed a motion to reconsider sentence, which was denied on

August 11, 2020.

Discussion and Decision [7] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (internal citations omitted). [8] It is uncontested that Riddle violated the terms of his probation. On appeal,

Riddle argues only that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his entire

nine-year sentence and ordering that the entire sentence be served in the DOC.

Specifically, he argues that “[f]irst and foremost, it should be remembered that

he is an addict” and “[a]ddressing an addict’s problem instead of a lengthy

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 6

prison term could have led him to a new life instead of one likely to continue

the same pattern.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. Riddle acknowledges that he did not

return to the drug-treatment center as instructed but argues that “[f]ailing to

appear after finding out that a warrant had been issued for his arrest should not

have been held against” him because “[d]rug addicts do not think rationally like

everyone else and should be given the benefit of the doubt.” Appellant’s Br. p.

7. We cannot agree.

[9] Riddle’s participation in Veteran’s Court was terminated after he failed to

return to the drug-treatment center as ordered. The parties’ plea agreement

explicitly states that the entire nine-year sentence “shall be executed in the

[DOC] if [Riddle’s] participation in [Veteran’s] Court is voluntarily or

involuntarily terminated.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. Riddle

acknowledged this language and expressly affirmed that “the total sentence

shall be executed” in the DOC if he failed to successfully complete the

programs ordered in accordance with his participation in Veteran’s Court.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 23. [10] Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) provides that if the court finds that the

person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the

probationary period, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the

sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Given this

statutory authority coupled with the fact that the parties’ plea agreement

expressly stated that unsuccessful termination of Riddle’s participation in

Veteran’s Court would result in the execution of the entire nine-year sentence,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 6

we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Riddle’s

probation and imposing a sanction that is consistent with the express terms of

the parties’ plea agreement. See State v. Stafford, 128 N.E.3d 1291, 1292 (Ind.

2019) (providing that trial courts are bound by the terms of a plea agreement

and, where a plea agreement calls for a specific sentence, the trial court is

bound by the terms of the plea agreement). [11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1479 | January 19, 2021 Page 6 of 6