Court Opinion

ID: 9897381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:10:51.894513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:13.082871
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                     Jun 02 2023, 8:54 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                     Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                        Court of Appeals
                                                                          and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Aaron J. Stoll                                             Theodore E. Rokita
The Law Office of Aaron J. Stoll, LLC                      Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana                                        Ellen H. Meilaender
                                                           Deputy Attorney General
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Manuel Trejo,                                              June 2, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CR-2667
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Noble Circuit
                                                           Court
State of Indiana,                                          The Honorable Michael J. Kramer,
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           57C01-0701-FA-2

                                Opinion by Judge Weissmann
                               Judges Bailey and Brown concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2667 | June 2, 2023                             Page 1 of 5
      Weissmann, Judge.

[1]   Manuel Trejo appeals the trial court’s finding that he violated a condition of his

      probation by failing to meet with the Noble County Probation Department

      upon his release from the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Trejo

      claims he could not meet with the probation department because he was in the

      custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Thus,

      Trejo contends his failure was involuntary. Because lack of volition is not a

      defense to an alleged probation violation under Indiana law, we affirm.

      Facts
[2]   In May 2008, Trejo was sentenced on a felony drug conviction to eight years in

      the DOC with five years suspended to probation. Standard Condition 1 of

      Trejo’s probation stated, in pertinent part: “You shall meet with the [probation

      department] immediately. You shall report to your probation officer as directed,

      and you shall truthfully answer all reasonable questions of your officer.” App.

      Vol. II, p. 14. Presumably, Trejo was taken into DOC custody after sentencing

      to begin serving the executed portion of his sentence.

[3]   Eighteen months later, in November 2009, the State filed a petition to revoke

      Trejo’s probation, claiming he violated Standard Condition 1. The State’s

      petition specifically alleged: “According to [ICE] records, [Trejo] is in their

      custody and is pending removal from the United States. Thus, he has violated

      the terms and conditions of his probation.” Id. at 35.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2667 | June 2, 2023           Page 2 of 5
[4]   On the day the State filed its probation revocation petition, the trial court issued

      a warrant for Trejo’s arrest. But Trejo was not arrested for the alleged probation

      violation until August 2022—13 years later. At Trejo’s factfinding hearing,

      Chief Probation Officer Stacey Beam testified that Trejo was in ICE custody in

      November 2009 but she did not know when Trejo was released from the DOC.

      Officer Beam further testified that she could find no record of Trejo contacting

      the probation department and, to Officer Beam’s knowledge, no such contact

      had occurred.

[5]   The trial court found that Trejo violated Standard Condition 1 of his probation

      and ordered him to serve 2½ years of his previously suspended sentence in the

      DOC. In issuing its sanction, the court noted that Trejo had made no effort to

      contact the probation department in the last 13 years. Trejo appeals.

      Discussion and Decision
[6]   Probation revocation is a two-step process: (1) the trial court must make a

      factual determination that a violation occurred; and (2) if a violation is proven,

      the trial court must determine if that violation warrants revocation. Woods v.

      State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Trejo only challenges the trial court’s

      step-one determination, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to

      prove he violated his probation.

[7]   The State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the

      evidence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). “When the sufficiency of evidence is at

      issue, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment—without

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2667 | June 2, 2023           Page 3 of 5
       regard to weight or credibility.” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind.

       2014). “[We] will affirm if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value to

       support the trial court’s conclusion that a probationer has violated any

       condition of probation.’” Id. (quoting Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind.

       1995)).

[8]    Trejo does not dispute that he failed to meet with the probation department in

       November 2009, as required by Standard Condition 1 of his probation. Rather,

       he claims the State did not prove his failure was voluntary. According to Trejo,

       the evidence showed he was in either DOC or ICE custody at all relevant times;

       thus, he could not meet with the probation department.

[9]    But “lack of volition” is “not a defense” to an alleged probation violation.

       Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 641. It is only a factor for the trial court to consider in

       fashioning the appropriate sanction once a violation is found. Id. (citing United

       States v. Warner, 830 F.2d 651, 657-58 (7th Cir. 1987) (“While good faith and

       lack of willfulness does not preclude finding a probation violation, defendant

       could and did raise his alleged good faith before the court as a factor for the

       court to consider in deciding whether to revoke probation.”)).

[10]   We find sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s determination that Trejo

       violated Standard Condition 1 of his probation by failing to meet with the

       probation department once he was no longer in DOC custody in November

       2009. Trejo’s inability to meet with the probation department because he was in

       ICE custody at the time has no bearing on whether the probation violation

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2667 | June 2, 2023           Page 4 of 5
       occurred. Instead, his alleged inability to comply with Standard Condition 1

       bears on the trial court’s sanction for the violation, which Trejo does not

       challenge.

[11]   We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

       Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-2667 | June 2, 2023          Page 5 of 5