Charles Broadus v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MATTHEW J. ELKIN Kokomo, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana MATTHEW WHITMIRE Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana FILED Dec 15 2008, 8:46 am IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA CHARLES BROADUS, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 34A02-0808-CR-702 APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Lynn Murray, Judge Cause No. 34C01-8810-CF-146 December 15, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION KIRSCH, Judge CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court Charles Broadus was ordered to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence after he violated his probation. He appeals, raising one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in executing his suspended sentence. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Broadus was convicted by a jury of dealing in cocaine as a Class B felony,1 adjudicated an habitual offender,2 and sentenced to ninety-five years. Appellant s App. at 4. Twelve years later, his sentence was modified to forty-five years, with forty of those years executed and five years suspended to probation. Id. at 9. Eleven months after Broadus was released to probation, he was arrested and pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine as a Class C felony.3 Id. at 17. After a hearing was held on the State s petition to revoke his suspended sentence, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve out the remainder of his suspended sentence. Tr. at 5. He now appeals. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Broadus contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the execution of his suspended sentence. We review a trial court s sentencing decision in a probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court s decision is 1 See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1(1). 2 See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(a). 3 See Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6(b)(1). 2 against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. A trial court having found that a defendant has violated a condition of probation may continue the probation, extend the probationary term, or order the execution of a sentence suspended at the time of sentencing. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3. Broadus admitted that he violated his probation. Appellant s App. at 127. He contends, though, that the trial court imposed the entire remainder of his suspended sentence without providing sufficient factual findings. Appellant s Br. at *4.4 We disagree. Although the trial court failed to set out its findings in writing, its order of revocation coupled with the transcript of the revocation hearing provides a sufficiently clear statement that the trial court revoked Broadus s probation because he committed another crime while on probation. See Appellant s App. at 19, 127. This is sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. See Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 621 (holding that the trial court s Order of Revocation combined with the hearing transcript provided an adequate basis for appellate review and satisfied the separate writing requirement). Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion. Affirmed. VAIDIK, J., and CRONE, J., concur. 4 The Appellant s Brief is not paginated. *4 represents the fourth page after the table of authorities. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
