THOMAS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Gentle Thomas, Jr. appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation. Thomas contends that the State failed to establish his identity during the probation revocation hearing. We disagree and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Thomas’ probation. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Thomas raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.

Facts

[3] In 2022, Thomas pleaded guilty to two counts of auto theft, Level 5 felonies, and ten other charges were dismissed. The trial court sentenced Thomas to four years in the Department of Correction on the first conviction consecutive to two years suspended to probation on the second conviction.

[4] On September 12, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Thomas’ probation and alleged that, while he was incarcerated, he committed the new offense of prisoner possessing a deadly weapon, a Level 4 felony. On November 21, 2023, the State filed a second petition to revoke Thomas’ probation and alleged that, while he was incarcerated, he committed the new offense of battery by bodily waste, a Level 6 felony.

[5] The trial court held a hearing on the petitions in July 2024. Correction Officer Matthew Price testified that Thomas was incarcerated in Officer Price's prison unit, and on August 9, 2023, while Thomas was being escorted to the Restricted Housing Unit, a homemade weapon was found in Thomas’ possession. The State then sought to admit State's Exhibit A, a surveillance photograph, which Officer Price identified as depicting himself, Thomas, and two other officers during the search of Thomas. Thomas did not object to the admission of the photograph, and the trial court admitted it into evidence.

[6] The State then sought to admit State's Exhibit B, another surveillance photograph from the incident, depicting Officer Price holding the homemade weapon in his hand. Thomas objected to the admission of Exhibit B based upon lack of foundation, and the trial court sustained the objection. The State then questioned Officer Price further regarding Exhibit B and again moved to admit the exhibit. Thomas did not make any further objections, and the trial court admitted State's Exhibit B. Tr. Vol. II p. 10. Thomas did not object to State's Exhibit C, which was an additional surveillance photograph of the incident, nor State's Exhibits D and E, which were photographs of the weapon.

[7] Officer Price further testified that, on October 16, 2023, he was “doing [his] rounds,” and as he approached Thomas’ cell, he heard a “splash” and saw “bodily fluid on [his] sleeve and on the floor.” Id. at 12. The material appeared to be “feces matter” with the “smell of urine as well.” Id. Officer Price observed Thomas in the cell at issue.

[8] At the end of the State's presentation of evidence, Thomas moved for a directed verdict on grounds that the State failed to prove Thomas’ identity. The State argued that “the pictures were identified and certainly the Court can take judicial notice that the gentleman in the photographs is the Defendant that's sitting here today.” Id. at 13. The trial court denied Thomas’ motion for directed verdict and stated: “[The] Court's satisfied that the exhibits that have been entered into evidence depict the Defendant who's present in the courtroom and before the Court today.” Id. The trial court then found that Thomas violated his probation as alleged. At a later hearing, the trial court ordered Thomas to serve the two years that were previously suspended. Thomas now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Thomas challenges the trial court's determination that he violated his probation. We review a trial court's determination regarding probation violations for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id.

[10] “ ‘Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.’ ” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we do not reweigh the evidence or credibility. Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267. We will affirm if “there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.” Id.

[11] “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “The requirement that a probationer obey federal, state, and local laws is automatically a condition of probation by operation of law.” Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(b).

[12] Thomas argues that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of Thomas’ identity in State's Exhibits A, B, and C because the perpetrator's full face is not shown in the photographs. Thomas, thus, argues that the trial court “abused its discretion when [it] concluded that the person referenced in testimony and in Exhibits A, B, and C was Mr. Thomas.” Appellant's Br. p. 9.

[13] The Indiana Rules of Evidence do not apply to probation revocation proceedings. Terpstra v. State, 138 N.E.3d 278, 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (citing Ind. Evidence Rule 101(d)(2)), trans. denied. Accordingly, Evidence Rule 201, which governs judicial notice, is inapplicable here. Moreover, the trial court did not state that it was taking judicial notice of Thomas’ identity. The trial court merely admitted the exhibits and stated that it was satisfied the photographs depicted Thomas. Judges presiding over probation revocation hearings “may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.”¹ Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999).

[14] Officer Price testified that Thomas was incarcerated in his unit; Officer Price found a homemade weapon on Thomas, as depicted in State's Exhibits A, B, and C; and as he was walking past Thomas’ cell, Officer Price was splattered with bodily waste. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient to establish Thomas’ identity, and the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to conclude Thomas violated his probation by committing two new offenses.

Conclusion

[15] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Thomas violated his probation by committing two new offenses. Accordingly, we affirm.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We further note that Thomas did not object to the admission of State's Exhibits A or C, and Officer Price testified that State's Exhibits A, B, and C depicted the officers searching Thomas. State's Exhibit B is cumulative of State's Exhibits A and C.

Tavitas, Judge.

May, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.