Preview:

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

FILED
Dec 31 2012, 11:23 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: RYAN D. BOWER Allen Allen & Brown Salem, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JUSTIN F. ROEBEL Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES L. MORGAN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 88A01-1206-CR-254

APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Frank Newkirk, Jr., Judge Cause No. 88D01-0812-FC-543

December 31, 2012 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

SHARPNACK, Senior Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE James Morgan appeals the trial court's order imposing sanctions following the revocation of his probation. We affirm. ISSUE Morgan presents one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve thirty months of his previously suspended sentence and by extending his probation by six months. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In December 2008, the State charged Morgan with Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony strangulation, and Class A misdemeanor battery. In March 2009, the parties filed a plea agreement in which Morgan agreed to plead guilty to Class C felony criminal confinement in the underlying cause here as well as misdemeanor battery and trespass in two other cause numbers. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges. In June 2009, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Morgan in accordance with that agreement to an aggregate term of four years with three years suspended to probation. In February 2011, the Washington County Probation Department filed a petition to revoke Morgan's suspended sentence for violating the law and consuming alcohol in violation of the terms of his probation. Specifically, the petition alleged that Morgan had been charged with Class D felony and Class A misdemeanor battery in Harrison County and that he had a blood alcohol content of 0.13 at the time of his arrest. Morgan, who had pleaded guilty to the Harrison County battery charges, admitted both violations. The
2

court ordered Morgan to serve thirty months of his previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction and extended his probation by six months. Morgan now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Morgan contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve thirty months of his previously suspended sentence and by extending his probation by six months. A trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. A trial court may order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence upon a violation of probation. Ind. Code

Download 12311201jss.pdf

Indiana Law