MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 25 2017, 10:04 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. Mackenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Trevor Nash Tice, May 25, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
15A05-1701-CR-171
v. Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable James D.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Humphrey, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
15C01-1209-FB-45
Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 1 of 4
Statement of the Case
[1] While on probation for child molesting as a Class B felony, Trevor Tice
(“Tice”), violated the terms of his probation by stealing equipment from his
employer. As a result of this violation, which Tice admitted, the trial court
ordered him to serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the
Department of Correction (“DOC”), with credit for time served. Tice argues
that the trial court abused its discretion because Tice had a job and had enrolled
in college. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Tice
to serve his entire previously suspended sentence after he violated
probation by committing another crime.
Facts
[3] In 2013, a jury convicted Tice of Class B felony child molesting. The trial court
sentenced him to the DOC for twelve (12) years, with five (5) years suspended
and five (5) years on probation. In December 2015, Tice began to serve his
probation. Three months later, in March 2016, Tice violated his probation by
failing to report a change of address to the probation department. Tice
admitted the violation, and the trial court revoked thirty days of his probation
as a sanction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 2 of 4
[4] In October 2016, Tice violated his probation a second time when he committed
Level 6 felony theft by stealing a safe and two log splitters from his employer,
Orsheln Farm and Home. The theft was captured on videotape, and Tice
admitted the violation at his revocation hearing in December 2016.
[5] Following the presentation of evidence at the revocation hearing, the trial court
noted that Tice was on probation for a very serious conviction and that this was
his second violation. The court further noted that Tice had received a
“significant break in [the] original sentence, with having five years suspended to
probation.” (Tr. Vol. II at 27). The trial court also pointed out that Tice had
already had one violation with only a thirty-day sanction. The trial court
concluded the hearing by ordering Tice to serve his “entire previously
suspended sentence of four (4) years and three hundred thirty-five days (335).”
(Tr. Vol. II at 27). Tice appeals.
Decision
[6] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a
right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Once a trial court
has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how
to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878
N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to trial courts and
sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial courts might be less
inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decision
for a probation violation is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 3 of 4
of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic
and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person
has violated his probation before termination of the probationary period, the
court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at
the time of the initial sentencing. IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3.
[7] Here, Tice does not dispute the fact that he violated the terms of his probation.
Rather, while acknowledging that “reversals on probation revocations are rare,”
Tice argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his
entire previously suspended sentence because he “had a job waiting and had
enrolled in college.” (Tice’s Br. at 7). However, at the sentencing hearing, the
trial court pointed out that Tice had received a “significant break” when he was
sentenced to twelve years with five years suspended to probation for his Class B
felony conviction. (Tr. Vol. II 27). The trial court also pointed out that Tice
had already had one probation violation with only a 30-day sanction. The trial
court’s decision to deny Tice yet another chance is amply supported by the
record and not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before the court. The trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered
Tice to serve his entire previously suspended sentence.
[8] Affirmed.
May, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 4