ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Anthony D. Hutson

Jeffersonville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill 

Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie E. Newell

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dominique Castillo,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 11, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

31A01-1604-CR-742

Appeal from the Harrison Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Joseph L. Claypool, 

Judge.

Cause No. 31D01-1408-F5-472

Sharpnack, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[1] The trial court revoked the probation of Dominique Castillo and ordered that 

he serve the whole of his suspended sentence. He appeals contending that the 

trial court violated his due process rights because it did not explain why it 

ordered him to serve his entire suspended sentence. He also claims that because 

the trial court did not explain its choice, it is possible that it may have 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 1 of 10
considered inappropriate testimony. He requests that we “reverse the trial 

court’s order revoking his suspended sentence and remand for an additional 

hearing to address the appropriate sanction for his violation of probation after 

which the trial court should issue a statement of its reasons for its decision.” 

Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 7. We affirm. 

Issues

[2] Castillo raises one issue, which we expand and restate as:

I. Whether Castillo was denied due process because the trial 

court did not state specific reasons for ordering the execution of 

all of the sentence, two and one-half years, that was suspended at 

the time of his original sentencing; and

II. Whether because the trial court did not state specific reasons 

for the sanction, the trial court may have considered some 

evidence it should not have.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 27, 2015, Castillo pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor, a 

Level 5 felony,1

for having sexual intercourse with a fourteen-year-old female 

victim. He was sentenced to four years in the Indiana Department of 

Correction (IDOC), with two and one-half years suspended to probation and 

one and one-half years served. As a condition of his probation, Castillo was 

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-9(a) (2014). 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 2 of 10

 
prohibited from having contact with persons under the age of eighteen, unless 

authorized by his probation officer, and from living within one mile of the 

victim.

[4] Castillo was released from the IDOC on October 22, 2015. The next day, he 

contacted the Harrison County Probation Department. He first met with the 

sex offender officer, and later with his probation officer. He told the officers 

that since his release he had been living with his mother, that his mother made 

him leave her house because he insisted on visiting his seventeen-year-old 

girlfriend, and that he currently was living with his girlfriend and her family. 

The girlfriend’s brother, who was fourteen years old, also lived in the house, 

which was located within one mile of the home of Castillo’s victim in his sexual 

misconduct case. The officers each reminded Castillo of the terms of his 

probation and told him to move out of the house immediately. Castillo 

contacted his probation officer the next morning and told her he was living at a 

new address.

[5] The following day, the officers drove to the new address to visit with Castillo. 

On the way, they passed the girlfriend’s house and saw Castillo standing in the 

yard. Castillo then went inside the residence. The officers stopped at the 

residence and confronted Castillo, who admitted he had stayed overnight. 

[6] Probation revocation proceedings commenced. At the revocation hearing, 

Castillo admitted to living at his girlfriend’s house in violation of the terms of 

his probation. On March 9, 2016, the trial court issued its order finding that 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 3 of 10
Castillo had violated the terms of his probation and ordering him to serve his 

entire two and one-half years suspended sentence, saying:

Well[,] the Court finds that Dominique through his own 

testimony has violated the conditions of probation so the State 

has proved their case well beyond a preponderance of the 

evidence and he also [sic] one of the terms of those conditions 

that he violated is to have no contact with persons under the age 

of eighteen unless authorized by a probation officer and he’s 

supposed to tell a probation office when you do that before you 

do that, face to face and he admitted again to going into a 

person’s home and living [sic] that home for [sic] a woman under 

– seventeen years of age and a younger brother at that time so 

therefore, the Court is revoking your probation. We’re going to 

revoke his probation for the two and a half years that was on the 

shelf and I’m hearing the testimony of both sides in this matter. I 

think that he has blatantly violated the terms and conditions here 

and he is going to be revoked for the two and a half years.

Tr. pp. 54-55. Castillo now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[7] Castillo argues that his due process rights were violated because the trial court 

did not provide a statement of reasons why it ordered him to serve his 

previously suspended sentence instead of “other available alternatives.” 

Appellant’s Br. p. 9. Castillo also contends the trial court abused its discretion 

when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve his previously 

suspended sentence because it may have considered inappropriate testimony. 

[8] “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.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 4 of 10
2007). “The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke 

probation if the conditions are violated.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188; see also, 

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2015). If the court finds that the person has violated a 

condition at any time before termination of the probation period, and the 

petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose 

one or more sanctions, including ordering execution of all or part of the 

sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-

38-2-3(h) (2015). A trial court’s decision for imposing sanctions for probation 

violations is reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. See Prewitt, 878 

N.E.2d at 188; see also, Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2005) (trial court’s sentencing decision in probation revocation proceeding is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion), trans denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs 

where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. 

I.

[9] Castillo first argues that his due process rights were violated because the trial 

court failed to give a statement of reasons explaining why it ordered him to 

serve his previously suspended sentence. 

[10] In support of his argument, Castillo relies on Medicus v. State, 664 N.E.2d 1163 

(Ind. 1996), for the proposition that due process requires a statement of the trial 

court’s reasons for ordering the execution of a suspended sentence. Castillo’s 

reliance on Medicus is misplaced. Medicus addresses the due process 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 5 of 10
requirements for revocation of probation, not for ordering sanctions following 

revocation of probation. 

[11] In Medicus, our Supreme Court set forth the procedural and substantive due 

process rights of probationers facing a revocation of probation, which include 1) 

written notice of the claimed violations; 2) disclosure of the evidence against the 

defendant; 3) the opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and 

evidence; 4) a limited right to confront and cross-examine witnesses; 5) a 

neutral and detached factfinder; and 6) a written statement of the reasons for 

revocation. Id. at 1164 (citing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S. Ct. 

2593, 2604, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), where the United States Supreme Court 

applied the Due Process Clause to parole revocation hearings and stated the 

minimum requirements of a parole revocation hearing, including the written 

statement requirement). Our Supreme Court in Medicus held that the trial 

court’s statement that “the defendant has violated his terms of probation” failed 

to satisfy the written statement requirement set forth in Morrissey, and remanded 

the case to the trial court for a probation revocation statement consistent with 

the due process requirement. Medicus, 664 N.E.2d at 1164, 1165.

[12] Medicus, citing Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 105 S. Ct. 2254, 85 L. Ed. 2d 636 

(1985), requires a written statement of reasons for probation revocation. 

Medicus does not directly address any requirement that specific reasons must be 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 6 of 10
given for the sanction that is imposed upon revocation.2

 Here, the trial court 

provided a sufficiently clear statement of its reasons for revoking Castillo’s 

probation to satisfy the Morrissey due process statement requirement. Black

agreed that a statement of reasons for revocation is required, but that no specific 

statement regarding consideration of alternative sanctions is required. See Black, 

471 U.S. at 612 (“One point relevant to the present case is immediately evident 

from a review of the minimum procedures set forth in some detail in Gagnon[3

]

and Morrissey: the specified procedures do not include an express statement by 

the factfinder that alternatives to incarceration were considered and rejected.”). 

[13] This court has held that a detailed sentencing statement following revocation of 

probation is not required when reinstating a portion of an already imposed 

sentence, and that a written statement indicating the trial court, following a 

probation revocation, considered alternatives to incarceration is not necessary. 

See Berry v. State, 904 N.E.2d 365, 366 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); Monday v. State, 671 

N.E.2d 467, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (citing Black, 471 U.S. 606). We 

conclude there is no due process requirement for a specific statement of reasons 

for the sanction imposed following revocation of probation. 

2 Upon revocation of probation, the trial court may impose any one or more of the following sanctions: (1) 

continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the 

person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; and (3) 

order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 

35-38-2-3(h) (2015).

3 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1973).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 7 of 10

 
[14] Regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the 

sanction, we find it did not. At the conclusion of Castillo’s probation 

revocation hearing, the court reiterated that under the terms of his probation, 

Castillo was prohibited from having contact with persons under the age of 

eighteen, unless authorized by his probation officer. The court noted that 

Castillo testified that he was living with his seventeen-year-old girlfriend and 

her younger brother without authorization, and was in violation of the terms of 

his probation. The trial court indicated that it had heard testimony from both 

the State and Castillo, and that it found Castillo violated his probation because 

he admitted to doing so “through his own testimony.” Tr. p. 54. The court 

also determined that Castillo’s violation of his probation was blatant. Given 

Castillo’s blatant disregard for the terms of his probation, the trial court was 

well within its discretion to sanction him by ordering him to serve his 

previously suspended sentence.

II.

[15] Castillo next argues the trial court may have abused its discretion in the 

revocation process. He suggests that because the trial court did not state 

specific reasons for the sanction, the trial court may have considered 

inappropriate testimony when it sentenced him to serve his previously 

suspended sentence. In support of his argument, Castillo asserts that sex 

offenses, of the type he committed, “evoke strong opinions and reactions and it 

is especially important to ensure that only proper factors are considered in

sentencing.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. Castillo points to his probation officer’s 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 8 of 10
testimony that he was not “an appropriate candidate for probation,” and 

evidence at trial of his “[going] against [his mother’s] wishes” when he left her 

house to live with his girlfriend. Tr. pp. 28, 45. Castillo argues that 

consideration of the nature of his underlying offense, the officer’s opinion, and 

the evidence regarding his mother’s wishes might be akin to the error that 

occurred in Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In Puckett, 

we held that a special judge in the defendant’s probation revocation hearing had

“consider[ed] multiple improper factors” in choosing a sanction, such as: 

whether the original plea accepted by the original trial judge was too lenient, 

finding the defendant committed a more serious crime than the one of which he 

was convicted, and the special judge’s personal beliefs. See Puckett, 956 N.E.2d 

at 1187-89. 

[16] The facts of this case are distinguishable from Puckett. Here, there is no 

suggestion that the trial judge may have been trying to make up for an initial 

sentence he considered inadequate. 

[17] Castillo’s argument, by his own admission, is “pure speculation because” 

according to Castillo “there is [no statement] from which the trial court’s 

rationale [in choosing a sanction] can be discerned.” Appellant’s Br. p. 11. 

However, we already have determined the trial court was not required to 

provide specific reasons for imposing the sanction. We are unpersuaded the 

trial court may have considered inappropriate testimony. No abuse of 

discretion occurred here.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 9 of 10
Conclusion

[18] For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[19] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 31A01-1604-CR-742 | January 11, 2017 Page 10 of 10