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
Jun 13 2011, 9:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: GREGORY L. CALDWELL Noblesville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANDREW A. KOBE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RICHARD BARTLETT, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 29A04-1012-CR-813

APPEAL FROM THE HAMILTON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Paul Felix, Judge Cause No. 29C01-0907-FB-68

June 13, 2011 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Richard Bartlett violated his community corrections placement and probation by testing positive for amphetamine. He now appeals his sanction for violating his

probation. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History In June 2010, Bartlett pled guilty to Class D felony arson. In July 2010, he was sentenced to two and a half years in the Indiana Department of Correction with one year executed and one and a half years suspended. Appellant's App. p. 21. The one-year executed portion of his sentence was ordered to be served in the Hamilton County Community Corrections work release program. Id. One year of his suspended sentence was ordered to be served on probation. Id. Less than one month after entering the work release program, Bartlett was given a urine drug screen, which tested positive for amphetamine. He had taken the drug

Adderall without a prescription. On August 26, 2010, the State filed a Notice of NonCompliance with Community Corrections Placement alleging that Bartlett tested positive for amphetamine on August 13, 2010, in violation of community corrections rules. Id. at 24. On August 30, the State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that Bartlett violated his probation by violating the conditions of his community corrections placement by testing positive for amphetamine. Id. at 26. A hearing for both the community corrections and probation violations was held in October 2010. At this time, Bartlett had been in jail for approximately forty days. Although Bartlett was prepared to admit to violating both community corrections and 2

probation, he and the State could not agree on sanctions. See Tr. p. 4. The trial court instructed Barlett that his disposition would be "completely at the Court's discretion." Id. The hearing proceeded, and Bartlett admitted to violating both community corrections and probation. As for sanctions, Bartlett explained that he received the pill from a coworker while he was working at Jiffy Lube on work release. He said that he was experiencing symptoms of ADD and that he used to be under the care of a doctor for ADD. Bartlett promised that he was not "gonna pull another stupid stunt" like this and that he was "gonna fly straight." Id. at 24. The State recommended that Bartlett serve the remainder of his work release in the DOC, which amounted to approximately 191 days. Bartlett, however, asked to be placed back on work release with no time in the DOC. The trial court ruled: On July 21st of this year I listed for you a couple of things that I thought made the sentencing hearing or it made different factors considered -- that I should consider those factors to be aggravating factors. That would be your criminal history, recent criminal history, crimes that occurred while you were -- or allegations of crimes that occurred while you were on bond. And I also listed your marijuana use as an aggravating factor. Since it wasn't that long ago, you might recall me talking about those things. Two things I listed as mitigators were that you were young and that you pled guilty. There are a number of other things that I wrote down as things that I thought helped me determine what type of person I was dealing with, or in other words, what your character was. And the things that I wrote down at the time, I'm not too sure if I commented on them or not, but from a review of your presentence investigation and the evidence at the hearing that there was information that you had quit a number of jobs that you had previously held, that you quit school, you were suspended from school, that you did not take -- did not take full advantage of opportunities for rehabilitation that had been given to you in the past. I also commented upon how, based upon the timing of your child's birth that you knew or should've known that your fianc

Download Richard Bartlett v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law