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: HILARY BOWE RICKS Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana JAMES E. PORTER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Dec 30 2010, 9:38 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

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

CLERK

No. 49A02-1006-CR-646

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Carol Orbison, Judge Cause No. 49G22-0911-FB-96460

December 30, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION FRIEDLANDER, Judge

Wesley Crabtree appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation and imposing the execution of his previously suspended sentence. Crabtree presents the following restated issues for our review: 1. Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's order concluding that Crabtree had violated his probation? Did the trial court abuse its discretion by imposing the execution of Crabtree's previously suspended sentence?

2.

We affirm. Crabtree pleaded guilty to Burglary1 as a class B felony in exchange for the dismissal of a charge of theft and a six-year cap on the executed portion of his sentence. On January 19, 2010, the trial court accepted Crabtree's plea and sentenced him to 6 years with 122 days executed, 2068 days suspended, and 730 days on probation. On April 13, 2010, Crabtree's probation officer filed a notice of probation violation alleging that Crabtree had violated a no-contact order provision of his probation. The no-contact order prohibited him from entering the apartment complex grounds as the tenants of one of the units were the victims in the underlying case. The notice of probation violation also alleged that Crabtree had on two different days submitted diluted urine screens. Crabtree admitted to submitting two diluted urine screens, but denied violating the nocontact order. A maintenance technician from the apartment complex testified at Crabtree's evidentiary hearing that he knew Crabtree was prohibited from entering the apartment complex property, he had seen a "mug shot" of Crabtree, he had seen Crabtree at the

1

Ind. Code Ann.

Download Wesley Crabtree v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law