Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 1 of 6 

### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Christopher L. Clerc Columbus, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana
Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana



### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony E. Jeffares, A

ppellan t -Defendant,

v. 

### State of Indiana, A

ppelle e -Plaintiff

. September 28, 2016 Court of Appeals Case No. 03A01-1605-CR-1176 Appeal from the Bartholomew Circuit Court The Honorable Stephen R. Heimann, Judge. Trial Court Cause No. 03C01-1110-FB-5718

Vaidik, Chief Judge.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 2 of 6 

# Case Summary

[1] Anthony E. Jeffares contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to the balance of his ei ghteen-year sentence for violating his probation (for a second time) in this ca se. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

# Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2012, Jeffares pled guilty to Cl ass B felony burglary. The trial court sentenced him to eighteen years, with three years suspended. In March 2014, the trial court modified Jeffares’ senten ce. It placed him in the Community Transition Program for approximately th ree months. Upon completion of the program, the court suspended the balanc e of his sentence and placed him on probation for five years.

[3] Jeffares completed the program and started probation in June 2014. Six months later, in November 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke Jeffares’ probation for using heroin and failing to pay fees . Jeffares was referred to an intensive outpatient program (IOP), but he neve r completed the treatment. Jeffares admitted violating his probation, and th e trial court sentenced him to nine months in jail and extended his probation.

[4] In March 2016, the State filed a second pe tition to revoke Jeffares’ probation for testing positive for methamphetamin e and marijuana, committing the new crimes of possession of methamphetamin e, marijuana, and paraphernalia, andCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 3 of 6 failing to pay fees. Jeffares admitted vi olating his probation and asked to be placed back in community corrections. Je ffares’ probation officer testified that the probation department had tried “eve rything that we have” with Jeffares, including “our most inte nsive programming with wo rk release,” yet Jeffares “continues to use drugs.” Tr. p. 10. The probation officer concluded, “we just don’t have anything more that we can offer him, sadly.” Id. The trial court revoked Jeffares’ probation and ordere d him to serve the balance of his eighteen-year sentence (with credit of 1137 actual days), to be served in prison. The court reasoned:
Prior to incarceration, your choice of drugs was methamphetamine or opiates. Yo u described your typical day as follows: get high or find a way to, did the current Burglary to support your drug habit. You reported, I’m not a career criminal. I just have a bad drug problem. Hope I can work on this. . . .
So you’re 53 and I look back through your criminal history, dating back to 1979, as a juvenile. All sorts of charges. . . . Then as an adult and you had treatment opportunities; rehab in ’82, ’85 Koala and Aftercare ’86 IOP and Afte rcare. . . . Auto Theft back in 2004; evaluation and fo llow recommendation of the evaluation. But even after that treatment opportunity, admits to violating probation by ingesti ng and testing positive for marijuana in ’06; cocaine and ma rijuana in ’07. Sent you to DOC.

* * * * *
The State has already gone over what happened in this case. You got in the [DOC], you got some treatment and now you’reCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 4 of 6 coming here and saying, oh, it wa sn’t the right treatment; didn’t get what I needed.

Your sentence was modified out and you were off of the Community Transition Program on the 11th day of June, 2014. In November of 2014 was the Peti tion to Revoke. Instead of sending you back to prison, . . . you were put in jail, you were given credit for it and you got out then on March 24, 2015 and now here we are again.
You said what you need is . . . more help and that’s right, you do. There’s no question about it . You do need more help. But where you need help from is fr om yourself. That’s the one person that needs to help you be cause there’s been all sorts of other people who have tried and tried and tried. But until you determine that you’re going to help yourself, no matter how much other people try to help you, it’s not going to make a difference.

Id. at 30-32.

[5] Jeffares now appeals.


# Discussion and Decision

[6] Probation revocation is a two-step proces s. First, the trial court must determine that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial court must decide whether the violatio n warrants revocation of probation. Id. If the trial court finds that the probation er violated a condit ion of probation, the court has several options:Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 5 of 6 (1) Continue the person on probat ion, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.
(2) Extend the person’s probatio nary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or pa rt of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). A trial cour t’s sentencing decision for violating probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State , 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[7] Jeffares contends that the trial court abus ed its discretion in ordering him to serve the balance of his eighteen-year sentence because he admitted violating his probation (like a defendant who pl eads guilty) and because he “made contact with” an addictions program. A ppellant’s Br. p. 8. The record shows that Jeffares violated his pr obation (a second time) for, at the very least, testing positive for drugs, which would have been relatively easy to prove without Jeffares’ admission. In sentencing Jeffa res to the balance of his eighteen-year sentence, the trial court noted that he had been given multiple chances in this case. First, Jeffares had his eighteen-year sentence modified after serving just two years. Then, after violating his proba tion the first time for using drugs, he was sentenced to jail instead of prison. In addition, the record shows that not only has Jeffares been given treatment o pportunities throughout his adult life, he was given them in this case, too. Ye t he failed to take advantage of them. Given Jeffares’ failures to address his drug prob lems and his pattern ofCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 6 of 6 squandering the opportunities that he ha s been given, it was within the trial court’s discretion to sentence him to th e balance of his eighteen-year sentence for violating his probation a second time.

[8] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.