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.
Aug 08 2014, 9:06 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
JONATHON T. COOK
Sansberry Dickmann Freeman Builta & Cook
Anderson, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SAMUEL CURTS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 48A04-1312-CR-615
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT
The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge
Cause No. 48E01-0608-FD-319
August 8, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Samuel Curts appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that the evidence is
insufficient to support three of the ten violations of the conditions of probation. Because the
seven remaining violations support revocation, we affirm.
Curts pled guilty to class D felony operating while intoxicated and was sentenced to
three years, with eighteen months suspended to probation. When Curts was on probation, the
State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that he violated ten conditions of
probation. The trial court found that he violated the conditions of probation as alleged and
revoked his probation.
On appeal, Curts argues that there is insufficient evidence to support three violations.1
“[P]robation is a ‘matter of grace’ and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’”
Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 907, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Cox v. State, 706
N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). “The decision to revoke probation is within the sole discretion
of the trial court.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). “When there is proof of
a single violation of the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation.” Beeler v.
State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a).
Assuming, without deciding, that the three violations challenged by Curts are
unsupported by sufficient evidence, seven violations remain. These include the commission
of new criminal offenses including two counts of class D felony operating a vehicle as a
habitual traffic violator and class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. Based upon
these violations, we affirm the revocation of Curts’s probation. See Hubbard v. State, 683
1
The State did not file a brief in this appeal.
2
N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (error in revoking defendant’s probation on ground not
stated in State’s notice of probation violation was harmless where other grounds supported
revocation).
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
3