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: JOHN T. WILSON Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana NICOLE M. SCHUSTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PRINCE DENO McCLENDON, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 48A05-0610-CR-558

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas Newman, Jr., Judge Cause No. 48D03-0407-FB-355

June 26, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Prince McClendon appeals the revocation of his probation and the execution of his previously suspended sentence. McClendon presents the following restated issues for review: 1. Was the revocation court's written sentencing order defective because it did not state with sufficient specificity the reason for revoking McClendon's probation, and was the evidence sufficient to support revocation? Did the revocation court err in executing the entire term of the suspended sentence?

2.

We affirm. The facts favorable to revocation are that on March 18, 2005, McClendon pled guilty to driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor, criminal recklessness as a class D felony, and interference with reporting a crime, a class A misdemeanor. Pursuant to a September 23, 2005 amended sentencing order, McClendon was sentenced to a three-year suspended sentence on the criminal recklessness conviction, one-year suspended sentences for the other two convictions, with all sentences to run concurrently, and eighteen months probation. The conditions of probation included: (1) paying court costs and user fees, (2) abstaining from alcohol use, (3) maintaining employment, (4) refraining from violating the law, (5) keeping the Madison Probation Department (the Probation Department) informed of his address, (6) reporting to the Probation Department in a timely manner, and (7) obeying his curfew, which required that he be home between midnight and 6 a.m. unless he was at work.

2

Shortly after 1:00 a.m. on July 20, 2006, Officers Trent Chamberlain and Mark Naselroad of the Anderson Police Department were dispatched to a Pizza King restaurant. Upon arrival, they observed McClendon in the parking lot talking on a cell phone. When McClendon saw the officers, he turned and walked away. Officer

Chamberlain ordered McClendon to stop, but McClendon merely changed directions and continued walking away. Officers Chamberlain and Naselroad got out of their patrol car and approached McClendon. As he neared McClendon, Officer Chamberlain detected a strong odor of alcohol on McClendon's person, and McClendon admitted he had been drinking. Officer Chamberlain observed that McClendon had noticeable bulges in his pockets and asked for McClendon's permission to search the pockets. McClendon consented. In one pocket, the officer found a small bag with a drawstring containing women's jewelry. As the officer reached for the other pocket, McClendon fled. Officer Chamberlain chased McClendon and, during the chase, saw McClendon drop a black and silver metallic object. Chamberlain picked up the object and determined it was a

stainless steel AMT .380 handgun. When the officer retrieved it, it was still warm from body heat. Police later determined the gun had been stolen within the last month. When the officers finally overtook McClendon, he refused to cooperate, so they were forced to wrestle him to the ground and handcuff him. As a result of the foregoing events, the Probation Department filed a notice alleging McClendon violated his probation. The notice alleged McClendon committed the following violations: (1) Failure to obey the law when, on July 20, he committed the 3

offenses of misdemeanor public intoxication, misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, carrying a handgun without a license, and receiving stolen property; (2) failure to keep the Probation Department apprised of his current address; (3) failure to timely report to the Probation Department; (4) failure to pay his probation and administrative fees; (5) failure to maintain employment and/or to verify his employment with the Probation Department; and (6) violation of curfew. An evidentiary hearing was conducted, after which the trial court found that McClendon violated his probation. Based upon the finding of violations, the revocation court executed McClendon's three-year, suspended sentence. 1. McClendon contends the revocation order must be reversed because "the Trial Court erred by failing to state its reasons and the evidence relied upon in writing, for revoking his probation due process requires that, when revoking probation, the Court state its reasons and the evidence relied upon, in writing, as part of the record." Appellant's Brief at 8. Pursuant to Ind. Code Ann.

Download Prince Deno McClendon v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law