MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED
court except for the purpose of establishing Apr 01 2019, 6:22 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR THE APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Joseph G. Ross, April 1, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2065
v. Appeal from the Floyd Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Susan L. Orth,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
22D01-0912-FA-3263
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2065 | April 1, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] On June 7, 2012, the trial court accepted Joseph G. Ross’s guilty plea to Class B
felony possession of cocaine and sentenced him to fifteen years of incarceration
with three years suspended to probation. On December 22, 2015, Ross was
placed on probation. On July 30, 2018, following two notices of probation
violations, the trial court found that Ross had violated the terms of his
probation and ordered the three years of his previously-suspended sentence to
be executed. Ross contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking
the entirety of his suspended sentence. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On December 16, 2009, Ross was charged with Class A felony possession of
cocaine and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. (App. Vol. II p. 20).
Ross and the State entered into a plea agreement on April 26, 2012, pursuant to
which Ross would plead guilty to Class B felony possession of cocaine in
exchange for a sentence of fifteen years of incarceration with three years
suspended to probation. (App. Vol. II p. 48). The trial court accepted Ross’s
plea and sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement. (App. Vol. II p.
97).
[3] On December 22, 2015, Ross was placed on probation. On May 11, 2016, the
State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that he had (1) failed to
maintain good behavior, (2) committed Level 6 felony counterfeit and Class A
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2065 | April 1, 2019 Page 2 of 5
misdemeanor theft, (3) failed to comply with the LifeSpring Project 1801, and
(4) failed to pay $710.00 in fines. (App. Vol III. p. 82). On May 26, 2016, the
State sought to revoke Ross’s probation. (App. Vol III. p. 83).
[4] Following the first notice of probation violation, Ross missed required
probation meetings on May 12, 2017, August 31, 2017, and September 14,
2017. On September 19, 2017, the State filed an amended notice of probation
violation, adding allegations that Ross had failed to report to a probation officer
as directed on multiple occasions, failed to report for review, and now had
$1135.00 of outstanding fees. Following a hearing on the amended petition on
July 30, 2018, (App. Vol. II p. 18), the trial court found Ross had violated the
terms of his probation and revoked the suspended portion of his sentence. (App.
Vol. III p. 99).
Discussion and Decision
[5] Ross contends that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking the entirety
of his three-year suspended sentence. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial
court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v.
State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Probation revocation is a two-step
process: (1) the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a
1
LifeSpring is a not-for-profit community mental health center, whose stated mission is “to improve and
sustain the quality of life in our communities by providing comprehensive behavioral health, addiction,
primary care and related services.” History and Mission, LIFESPRING HEALTH
SYSTEMS, http://www.lifespringhealthsystems.org/about-us/history-and-mission/ (last visited Mar. 8,
2019).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2065 | April 1, 2019 Page 3 of 5
condition of probation occurred, and (2) if a violation is proven, the court must
determine if the violation warrants a revocation of the suspended sentence.
Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. In
response to a petition to revoke, a court may “order execution of all or part of
the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code §
35-38-2-3(h)(3). The violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to
revoke probation. Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). We
review the determination of a probation violation and imposition of sanctions
for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. We will only reverse
where the revocation is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and
circumstances. Guillen v. State, 829 N.E.2d 142, 145 (Ind. 2005).
[6] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Ross
committed several probation violations. It is undisputed that Ross pled guilty to
Level 6 felony forgery and failed to pay up to $710.00 in fees. Additionally, the
trial court’s findings that Ross failed to attend or participate in several required
meetings and courses were supported by ample evidence. Ross contends that
because these probation violations were minor the trial court should only have
revoked half of his three-year sentence rather than revoking all of it. However,
this determination is subject to the discretion of the trial court. Ross committed
another felony, failed to pay fees, and failed to attend classes and probation
meetings even after the State filed a notice of probation violation. Probation has
not caused Ross to correct his poor behavior. The court was well within its
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2065 | April 1, 2019 Page 4 of 5
discretion to revoke the entirety of Ross’s sentence after he committed several
probation violations and another criminal offense.
[7] The judgement of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2065 | April 1, 2019 Page 5 of 5