MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] Terry L. Haskett appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violations of probation. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2016, Haskett pled guilty to Level 5 felony escape and admitted being a habitual offender. The trial court sentenced him to 4,320 days with 2,880 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) and the remaining 1,440 days suspended to probation. The court recommended that Haskett be placed in Recovery While Incarcerated (RWI). Upon successful completion of the program, the court said it would “consider a sentence modification after [Haskett] has served 1,440 actual days of his sentence.” Appellants App. Vol. II p. 80.
[3] Haskett completed RWI, and the trial court modified his sentence in 2020. Specifically, the court suspended 654 days of his executed sentence and added those days to the 1,440 days he already had suspended to probation, for a new total of 2,094 days suspended to probation.
[4] In August 2022, after Haskett had been on probation for around a year, the State filed a petition alleging that he violated his probation by (1) testing positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine in June and July 2022 and (2) being arrested for and charged with Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 6 felony counterfeiting.
1
In December 2022, Haskett admitted violating his probation in exchange for the States agreement to immediately release him to House of Hope to begin substance-abuse treatment. Defense counsel requested that the trial court schedule a dispositional hearing at least ninety days in the future to give Haskett sufficient time to begin treatment. The trial court granted defense counsels request and scheduled a dispositional hearing for April 2023. Haskett, however, failed to appear at the April 2023 dispositional hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Haskett was arrested on the warrant in January 2024.
[5] The dispositional hearing was held the next month. Jenny June Bartlett, Hasketts stepsister, testified that Haskett had been taking her to her chemotherapy appointments and helping her take care of her daughter who has autism and cerebral palsy. Bartlett also testified that Haskett was ready to make a change in his life. For example, he had filled out the FAFSA form so he could take college classes. Haskett, who was fifty-three years old, testified that he had spent thirty-one years of his life incarcerated and was “trying to change.” Tr. Vol. II p. 35. He said he had been seeing a therapist and was taking medication. He acknowledged that he failed to appear at the April 2023 dispositional hearing and knew about the arrest warrant but claimed that he didnt turn himself in because he was taking care of Bartlett.
[6] Haskett asked the trial court to place him back on probation. The State requested that all 2,094 days be executed in the DOC, stating that “[a]t least when hes in prison hes not going to victimize innocent people again.” Id. at 50. The trial court ruled as follows:
The Court does note that ․ the Defendant admitted to being in violation of the probation conditions. The court took it under advisement ․ and set that sentencing hearing for April 13th. Obviously that hearing did not occur because of the failure of the Defendant to appear․ The Court ․ cant help but have some empathy for the probationer from the testimony I’[ve] heard from Jenny Bartlett, the stepsister of the Defendant. The Court empathizes with you, Ms. Bartlett. But the Court just cant ignore ․ all the felony convictions that the Defendant has had. So you know, the Court finds mitigating ․ that ․ up until his recent incarceration, [he was] caring for the family for a period of time. And as indicated, to some extent, that he has pled rather than making the State of Indiana try these other cases. On the other side of the fence, the Court does find aggravating the Defendants prior criminal history, which is -- I dont know if it was nine pages long, but ․ I believe its undisputed, at least 16 arrests for felonies and a close number of that of convictions and incarceration․ The Court cannot ignore his ․ criminal record.
Id. at 51-52. Accordingly, the court ordered Haskett to serve 1,105 of the 2,094 days of suspended time in the DOC minus credit for time served.
[7] Haskett now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Haskett challenges the sanction imposed for his violations of probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.
[9] Haskett argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve 1,105 days of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. He asserts the court should have placed him back on probation because he “had made substantial positive improvements in his life.” Appellants Br. p. 10. In rejecting this argument, the trial court explained that after Haskett admitted violating his probation, it showed him leniency by delaying his dispositional hearing so that he could go to House of Hope. Haskett, however, failed to appear at the hearing, and a warrant was issued for his arrest. Haskett knew about the warrant but didnt turn himself in. The court acknowledged all the good things Haskett had been doing for his stepsister and her daughter but said it couldnt ignore his criminal history, which includes at least eleven felony convictions. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Haskett to serve about half of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.
[10] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In December 2023, Haskett pled guilty to both charges and was sentenced to eighteen months on community corrections.
Vaidik, Judge.
Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.