MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] Alex J. Lyons appeals the revocation of his probation, claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve his previously suspended two-year sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Lyons argues that the trial court should have imposed a sanction of “one-year of incarceration with any remaining time to be served on probation” in light of his “mental health issues and substance addiction.” Appellants Brief at 7, 10.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On March 12, 2021, the State charged Lyons with attempted robbery, a Level 5 felony, attempted auto theft, a Level 6 felony, and unauthorized entry of a motor vehicle, a Class B misdemeanor. Lyons subsequently pled guilty to attempted robbery, a Level 5 felony, where he admitted that he grabbed the victim and attempted to remove her from her parked vehicle. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges and to an executed sentence between two and four years. The trial court sentenced Lyons on January 12, 2022, to four years of incarceration with two years suspended to probation.
[4] On December 5, 2022, Lyons was denied placement in a community corrections transition program because he had accumulated sixteen conduct violations while incarcerated at a medium security facility. Those violations included battery against the facilitys personnel, obstructing surveillance, fighting, disruptive behavior, and repeated miscellaneous rules violations.
[5] On March 16, 2023, Lyons was released to the Tippecanoe Community Corrections Program (the Program). Two weeks later, he was removed from the Program for refusing to be searched and x-rayed when reentering the facility. During that episode, the attending officers handcuffed Lyons and escorted him to a cell. Lyons stated, “I am not going in that fu**ing cell” and physically resisted the officers. Appellants Appendix Vol. II at 100. Lyons struggled to free himself and attempted to “head butt” one of the officers. Id. Lyons was then placed in a head restraint and transported to the Tippecanoe County jail.
[6] On April 2, 2023, Lyons was charged with battery on a public safety official resulting in bodily injury, a Level 5 felony, for allegedly attacking a jail officer “because he had to wait for dinner to be delivered to him.” Transcript Vol. II at 39-40. Two days later, the State filed two petitions to revoke Lyonss probation. The first petition alleged that Lyons was removed from community corrections for rules violations, and the second alleged the commission of the new battery charge.
[7] Lyons was convicted of the battery charge and following a combined sentencing and probation revocation hearing on November 17, 2023, the trial court sentenced Lyons to five years of incarceration with a three-year habitual offender enhancement. The trial court took judicial notice of the evidence presented at the battery trial and found that Lyons “violated the terms of his probation by being removed from Tippecanoe County Community Corrections and by committing new criminal offenses.” Id. at 40-41. The trial court then ordered Lyons to serve his previously suspended two-year sentence at the DOC.
[8] Lyons now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] “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). Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides that, upon finding a probationer violated the terms of his probation, the trial court may:
(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.
[10] We review a trial courts sentencing decision following the revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 306-07 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. at 307.
[11] Lyons contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the entire balance of his previously suspended sentence at the DOC in light of his substance abuse issues and mental health challenges. In support of that claim, Lyons notes that this court has previously reversed a trial courts order directing the defendant to serve the entire balance of a previously suspended sentence at the DOC where medical conditions and a technical rule violation warranted less severe punishment. See Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
[12] In this case, the evidence established that Lyons was removed from the Program for violating the rules in refusing to be searched and x-rayed upon his re-entry to the facility. When officers attempted to subdue Lyons, he resisted being handcuffed and tried to head butt an officer. Three days later—after being placed in a jail cell—Lyons attacked one of the jail staff. Lyonss aggression and noncompliance resulted in Community Corrections banning him from continued participation in those programs.
[13] It was also shown that Lyonss probation was revoked on five occasions since 2018 for committing various criminal offenses, including resisting law enforcement, robbery, and theft. Lyons was shown considerable leniency in the past and was afforded opportunities to seek treatment for his substance abuse in a less restrictive environment. Nonetheless, Lyonss recurring violent conduct and his refusal to avail himself of the opportunities granted to him demonstrate his noncompliance with the rules and supports the sanction that the trial court imposed.
[14] Additionally, while Lyons maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering an executed sentence because of his mental illness, the trial court did, in fact, consider Lyonss “history of mental health concerns” and his need for mental health treatment. Transcript Vol. II at 33, 38-39. To be sure, it was established that Lyons participated in inpatient mental health treatment in 2019; however, that treatment did not deter him from accumulating convictions for serious criminal offenses in 2020 and 2021. Moreover, the severity of Lyonss misbehavior indicates that he requires incarceration to protect himself and those around him from his actions. Lyons can obtain substance abuse treatment in the DOC where stringent safeguards in the facility will help ensure that he adheres to a treatment plan without endangering others.
[15] In sum, Lyons has not demonstrated that treatment in an environment other than at the DOC would be successful at reforming his behavior or addressing his mental health and substance abuse issues. That said, given Lyonss continued failures to lead a law-abiding life and/or abide by the terms of probation, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Lyons to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence at the DOC.
[16] Judgment affirmed.
Altice, Chief Judge.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.