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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANNA ONAITIS HOLDEN Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Feb 26 2010, 9:21 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANGELA N. SANCHEZ Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

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

No. 57A03-0908-CR-371

APPEAL FROM THE NOBLE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Michael J. Kramer, Judge Cause No. 57D02-0709-CM-982

February 26, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MAY, Judge

James M. Schwartz appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Schwartz wrote eight bad checks to a Pizza Hut restaurant. On March 10, 2008, Schwartz pled guilty to eight counts of Class A misdemeanor check deception.1 On each count, the court sentenced Schwartz to 365 days, with all but ninety days suspended to probation. The court ordered the sentence to be served consecutive to a sentence Schwartz was then serving on parole. The court ordered Schwartz to pay $590.07 in restitution to Pizza Hut and imposed a fine of $1.00 in each case and court costs of $160.00. On November 5, 2008, a probation violation report alleged Schwartz had not paid his fines or court costs. It also alleged Schwartz had been charged with fraud and theft on July 7, 2008, and charged with another theft on July 8, 2008. According to the report, Schwartz was sentenced for all three offenses on October 27, 2008. At a hearing on June 29, 2009, Schwartz admitted he had violated his probation. He confirmed he had been arrested and charged with theft on July 7, 2008, and convicted of Class C felony theft. The court then found Schwartz had violated the conditions of his probation. While considering the appropriate sanction, the court asked Schwartz if he had paid the restitution to Pizza Hut. Schwartz indicated that he had not. He explained he had been laid off from his job, and prior to being laid off, he had been behind on his child support payments. The prosecutor recommended Schwartz be ordered to serve his sentence, but

1

Ind. Code

Download James M. Schwartz v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law