MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] The trial court revoked Lyndsey Renae Glassburns probation after she was terminated from the Howard County Re-Entry Court Program (the Re-Entry Program), the completion of which was a requirement of her probation. On appeal, Glassburn argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it sanctioned her for the violation to a fully executed sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC). Additionally, Glassburn points out an error in the trial courts calculation of her credit time.
[2] We affirm and remand.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Glassburn pled guilty to two counts of Level 4 felony dealing in a narcotic drug, and in exchange, the State agreed to recommend at sentencing that she be placed in a clinically appropriate treatment program while in the DOC. The agreement also provided that the trial court would reserve the right to modify the sentence upon Glassburns completion of the treatment program.
[4] On June 8, 2021, the trial court imposed concurrent 4380-day, executed sentences in the DOC for each count, recommended Glassburn for purposeful incarceration, and indicated it would consider sentence modification upon the completion of an appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the DOC. The trial court determined Glassburns presentence credit time to be 691 days.
[5] Glassburn subsequently completed purposeful incarceration, and the trial court modified her sentence on February 2, 2023. The trial court approved her for the Community Transition Program (the CTP), a six-month program to begin on February 16, 2023, and suspended the balance of her executed sentence. As a condition of the CTP and her supervised probation, the trial court ordered Glassburn to successfully complete the Re-Entry Program.
[6] On February 17, 2023, Glassburn was placed on GPS monitoring through community corrections and transported to a sober living facility. Over the next two months, Glassburn violated the rules of the Re-Entry Program on several occasions, resulting in her being found in indirect contempt of court on February 17, March 16, March 24, and April 13. The trial court placed Glassburn in jail following each of these contempt findings – the first time for a week, the second and third time each for a weekend, and the last time indefinitely.
[7] On May 10, 2023, while still confined in jail, Glassburn sent a letter to the trial court. Glassburn expressed that she knew “the Harry Fondats situation ․ was wrong” but that she let her emotions take control. Appellants Appendix at 180. She also provided excuses for smoking and vaping at the work release facility and pleaded with the trial court to give her another chance and place her in a different facility.
[8] The next day, the Re-Entry Program filed a notice with the trial court of its intention to terminate Glassburn from the program. The notice provided the following reasons for termination: “Defendant continuously having contact with felons; along with violating the terms and conditions of Re-Entry [ ] Program.” Id. at 184. At a hearing on July 21, 2023, Glassburn entered a plea of true, and the trial court found that she violated the terms of the Re-Entry Program as alleged.
[9] On July 24, 2023, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Glassburns suspended sentence, alleging that Glassburn had violated probation by failing to complete the Re-Entry Program. Following an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the trial court found Glassburn in violation of probation due to her termination from the Re-Entry Program. The court also noted that Glassburn had not been truthful during her testimony and that she could have avoided Fondats, a felon, “the whole time” and that much of her contact with him was over the phone while she was in jail. Transcript at 21.
[10] At the sentencing hearing on January 2, 2024, Glassburn testified that she believed she deserved another chance because she had remained sober and “didnt break no laws.” Id. at 30. She also seemed to claim that she only talked to Fondats because he was her power of attorney and that she was not aware that she could not contact him. Before imposing the sentence, the trial court made a detailed statement:
Youre very, very good at not stating the truth. We have dozens of phone calls where youre having contact with people who are felons. We have numbers of phone calls where youre lying to people that youre going to get kicked out of reentry program if they dont pay you money and provide money to you so that you can spend money ․ [In a]ddition to that during the initial phases where we didnt punish you, you were, in fact caught stealing from other people. You in fact did threaten other people. And here in November, you went so far as to take a handicapped person at the jail who was sitting in a wheelchair and you threw her on the ground in the view of everybody in that particular part of the gym. There is no level of lie that you were unwilling to tell in order to obtain a result․ Probably the most offensive thing to the court is your unmitigated gall and just lying about what you do. The sad part is we have so many phone calls that everybody just wanted to stop listening to them. Do you know how many people on those phone calls told you to do the right thing and follow the rules? The idea that you were not ․ specifically told to not talk to Mr. Fondats is ridiculous beyond belief ․
Id. at 33. The trial court revoked Glassburns probation and ordered her to serve the remainder of her 4380-day sentence in the DOC. With credit time, the trial court determined that she had 2468 days left to serve.
[11] Glassburn now appeals her sentence and the calculation of credit time. Additional information will be provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by returning her to the DOC for the remainder of her sentence.
[12] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the trial court has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. Accordingly, a trial courts sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion and reversible only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of his probation at any time before the termination of the probationary period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, then the court may order execution of the sentence that had been suspended.” Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed on the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing).
[13] Glassburn claims that she was terminated from the Re-Entry Program “for appointing a longtime friend as her power of attorney.” Appellants Brief at 10. The record does not support this claim. Glassburn herself testified that she did not appoint Fondats as her power of attorney until May 2023. This was after she was returned to jail for her fourth violation of the Re-Entry Program, the violation that resulted in her termination from the program. In other words, Glassburns unauthorized contact with felons started before she appointed Fondats as her power of attorney. And the trial court noted that Glassburn contacted Fondats multiple times from jail and that there were “dozens” of recorded jail calls between Glassburn and “people who are felons.” Transcript at 33. After multiple other violations of the Re-Entry Program in the first two months, which resulted in jail stints, Glassburn was ultimately terminated for continuing to have contact with felons.
[14] Contrary to her assertion on appeal, Glassburn was not sentenced to a fully executed sentence “for what amounts to a technical violation.” Appellants Brief at 10. Glassburn was terminated from the Re-Entry Program after repeatedly violating the rules and being found in indirect contempt of court multiple times. As a result of her termination, Glassburn did not complete the Re-Entry Program, which was a special condition of her probation – not a mere technical condition of her probation.
[15] At sentencing, the trial court took judicial notice of the contempt and termination proceedings and the dozens of recorded jail calls. The court noted that Glassburn had been given additional chances after stealing from and threatening other people while in the Re-Entry program. The court also noted Glassburns recent behavior in jail, when she threw a handicapped inmate to the ground. Finally, the court emphasized Glassburns dishonesty: “Probably the most offensive thing to the court is your unmitigated gall and just lying about what you do.” Transcript at 33. Considering all these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Glassburns entire suspended sentence.
2. The trial court miscalculated Glassburns credit time.
[16] Credit time is a matter of statutory right, and thus trial courts do not have discretion in awarding or denying credit time. Harding v. State, 27 N.E.3d 330, 331-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Relevant here, a person convicted of a Level 4 felony who is not a credit restricted felon is initially assigned to credit time Class B and earns one day of good time credit for every three days the person is imprisoned for a crime. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-4(b); I.C. § 35-50-6-3.1(c).
[17] Glassburn argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court incorrectly calculated credit due for the time she served after being originally sentenced. The trial court found that Glassburn had served 939 actual days between June 8, 2021, and January 2, 2024. But it awarded only 281.7 days of good time credit for that period, when the correct amount was 313 days.
1
Including the 691 days of credit time for her presentence confinement, Glassburn had only 2437 days left to serve,
2
not 2468 days. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to correct its order to reflect that the balance of Glassburns previously suspended sentence is 2437 days.
[18] Affirmed and remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The trial court appears to have incorrectly multiplied 939 by .3 rather than divided it by 3.
2
. 4380 - 691 - 939 – 313 = 2437
Altice, Chief Judge.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.