MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case summary
[1] Following a hearing, the trial court found that Jason Grider violated the terms of his probation by being unsuccessfully terminated from his treatment program and committing a new criminal offense while on probation. The trial court ordered Grider to serve fifteen years in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) as a sanction for his probation violations. On appeal, Grider claims that the trial court abused its discretion when sanctioning him. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm. We, however, remand for the trial court to correct the period of incarceration in its probation revocation order.
Issue
[2] Grider raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion when sanctioning Grider.
Facts
[3] On April 14, 2022, Grider pleaded guilty to dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 2 felony. On May 12, 2022, the trial court sentenced Grider to a total of fifteen years, with thirteen years suspended and six years of supervised probation. The two years of executed time were ordered to be served in the county jail with the last 120 days on work release.
[4] In March 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Griders probation. The State alleged that Grider violated the terms of his probation by being unsuccessfully terminated from his treatment program after four days and for possessing spice.
1
On April 13, 2023, Grider admitted to the probation violations, and the trial court ordered Grider to return to probation. The trial court, however, ordered Grider to remain in jail until a placement was available in a treatment facility. Grider then began a treatment program.
[5] On July 3, 2023, Grider was again unsuccessfully terminated from his treatment program because he tested positive for methamphetamine. Grider also failed to communicate with his probation officer. As a result, the State filed a second petition to revoke Griders probation. On December 20, 2023, the State amended its petition to include an allegation that Grider committed the criminal offense of resisting law enforcement.
[6] On January 8, 2024, the trial court held a fact-finding hearing and determined that Grider had again violated the terms of his probation by:
being terminated from Grace Recovery and Wellness Program on July 3, 2023 and failed to complete; using methamphetamine on or about June 20, 2023; not keeping either Bartholomew County or Madison County with an updated address or phone number and failing to report on July 13, 2023 and September 26, 2023, and there was probable cause for his arrest on November 16, 2023 for Resisting Law Enforcement.[2]
Appellants App. Vol. II p. 73. The trial court ordered Grider to “serve fifteen (15) years” in the DOC, less credit for 576 days. Id.
Decision and discretion
[7] Grider challenges the sanction imposed by the trial court as a result of his probation violations. We review a trial courts determination regarding sanctions for probation violations for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id.
[8] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Id. “First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Id. “Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.” Id. Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) provides:
If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:
(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.
(2) Extend the persons probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
“While it is correct that probation may be revoked on evidence of violation of a single condition, the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendants probation violation ․” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.
[9] Although not raised by the parties, we must first note that the trial court originally sentenced Grider to serve fifteen years with thirteen years suspended. Upon the revocation of Griders probation, the trial court could order the “execution of ․ the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). Thus, the trial court was permitted to order Grider to serve thirteen years, which was the part of the sentence suspended at the initial sentencing. The trial court, however, ordered Grider to serve fifteen years, less credit time. Accordingly, we must remand for the trial court to correct its probation revocation order.
[10] The parties on appeal proceed as if the trial court imposed the full thirteen years of Griders previously suspended sentence, rather than fifteen years. Assuming the trial court intended to do so, Grider argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing this sanction. We disagree.
[11] Grider admitted to violating his probation once before, and the trial court gave Grider a second chance at probation. Grider, however, violated his probation for the second time by being unsuccessfully terminated from his treatment program, using methamphetamine, and failing to communicate with his probation officer. Grider also has a substantial criminal history, including convictions for theft, battery, and possession of illegal drugs. Given Griders substantial criminal history and his failure to take advantage of rehabilitation opportunities, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Grider to serve his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.
Conclusion
[12] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Grider. Accordingly, we affirm. We, however, remand for the trial court to correct its probation revocation order to reflect the revocation of the thirteen-year previously suspended sentence.
[13] Affirmed and remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1
. “Spice” refers to “[s]ynthetic cannabinoids ․ designed to mimic the psychoactive properties of marijuana.” Tiplick v. State, 43 N.E.3d 1259, 1261 (Ind. 2015).
2
. Although the trial court found a violation of probation due to the arrest for resisting law enforcement, during the probation revocation hearing, the trial court stated that it “is not going to find a violation of the Resisting Law Enforcement because its not been determined yet.” Tr. Vol. II p. 57. Despite this discrepancy, the trial court found other valid violations of Griders probation, and Grider does not challenge the trial courts finding that he violated his probation.
Tavitas, Judge.
Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.