Lukas Schoch, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following Lukas Schoch's guilty plea to Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine, the trial court sentenced him to three years of incarceration with two years suspended to probation. In 2024, the State alleged that Schoch had violated the terms of his probation by committing several new offenses and providing a drug-screen sample that tested positive for illegal substances. After Schoch admitted the allegations, the trial court ordered him to serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentence. Schoch contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to execute the remainder of his sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 2, 2020, Schoch pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in cocaine or narcotic drug in DeKalb County, and the trial court sentenced him to three years of incarceration with two years suspended to probation. The terms of Schoch's probation prohibited him from accruing new criminal arrests or convictions. On March 23, 2024, the State petitioned to revoke Schoch's probation, alleging that he had violated the terms of his probation by being charged with new crimes in Adams County, including operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and possession of a controlled substance. On May 13, 2024, the State supplemented its petition for revocation of probation alleging that Schoch had also violated the terms of his probation by being charged with conversion in Allen County. On June 16, 2024, the State supplemented its petition again, adding allegations that Schoch had provided a drug screen which was positive for clonazepam and marijuana. On July 15, 2024, the trial court held a dispositional hearing. Schoch admitted to the allegations in the State's petition to revoke and all of its supplements. The trial court revoked Schoch's probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[3] Schoch argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve two years of his previously-suspended sentence. The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard[,]” explaining that

[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 187 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Id. at 188.

[4] “Probation revocation is a two-step process.” Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). First, there must be a factual determination that a violation of a probation condition occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. See id. Here, Schoch admitted to violating the terms of his probation in several respects, by committing new criminal offenses and using illegal substances. Any one of those violations would have justified the trial court's decision to revoke Schoch's probation and “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1), -3(h)(3) (emphasis added).

[5] Schoch has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentence. Schoch has demonstrated that he is a poor candidate for probation by admittedly committing new offenses and using illegal drugs, which were conditions of his probation. Moreover, there was no reason for the trial court to believe that Schoch's behavior would improve without more coercive measures, as he had not provided even one negative drug screen since starting his probation, his attendance at drug treatment had been “sporadic[,]” and he had not completed any services. Tr. Vol. II p. 33. Given Schoch's admissions to multiple violations of the terms of his probation, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the remaining two years of his previously-suspended sentence.

[6] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Bradford, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Foley concur. Bailey, J., and Foley, J., concur.