Sadie G. Grace, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Sadie G. Grace (“Grace”) appeals the sanction imposed following the revocation of her probation. Grace argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve part of her previously suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Grace to serve part of her previously suspended sentence.

Facts

[3] In January 2022, the State charged Grace with Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated. The State also alleged that Grace was an habitual vehicular substance offender. In January 2023, Grace entered into a plea agreement with the State. Grace agreed to plead guilty to Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated and agreed to admit that she was an habitual vehicular substance offender. In exchange for her guilty plea and admission, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charge. The plea agreement also provided that Grace would serve 360 days for her Class A misdemeanor charge and 810 days for her habitual vehicular substance offender enhancement. The plea agreement further provided that ninety (90) days of the sentence would be executed in the county jail and the remaining 1,080 days would be served on probation. The plea agreement also provided that Grace would pay $44,394.06 in restitution for property damage that resulted from her driving. Finally, the plea agreement provided that Grace would, among other terms of her probation, “meet with her [c]ommunity [c]orrections [o]fficer and [p]robation [o]fficer any time [Grace] is directed to do so.” (App. Vol. 2 at 16). Grace also agreed to abstain from the use of any illegal drugs, to submit to drug screens, and to not commit criminal acts as terms of her probation. Additionally, Grace agreed to “[p]ay any financial obligation or penalty ․ within 6 months from the first day [she] [wa]s placed on probation[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 16). In January 2023, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and issued an order sentencing Grace pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court also issued a restitution order for the agreed amount of restitution.

[4] In October 2024, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Grace's probation and alleged that Grace had: (1) tested positive for methamphetamine on September 27, 2024; (2) failed to report to her probation officer as directed on September 24, 2024, September 25, 2024, October 21, 2024, and October 30, 2024; (3) failed to report for a drug screen on October 22, 2024 and October 25, 2024; and (4) failed to pay court-ordered fees, specifically restitution. In November 2024, the probation department filed a supplemental petition to revoke Grace's probation and alleged that Grace had tested positive for methamphetamine on November 1, 2024. In December 2024, the probation department filed another supplemental petition to revoke Grace's probation, in which it alleged that Grace had: (1) been arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine, a syringe, and paraphernalia on December 5, 2024; and (2) failed to submit to a drug screen on December 5, 2024.

[5] The trial court held a probation revocation hearing in January 2025. During the hearing, Grace withdrew her initial denial of the allegations and admitted to violating the terms of her probation. Specifically, Grace admitted that every allegation made in the probation department's petitions to revoke her probation was true. Grace also admitted that she had not made a payment towards her court-ordered restitution since May 2024. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Grace had violated the terms of her probation, revoked her probation, and ordered Grace to serve 810 days of her previously suspended sentence in the county jail.

[6] Grace now appeals.

Decision

[7] Grace acknowledges that she admitted to violating her probation by consuming illegal substances, failing to submit to drug screens, and failing to meet with her probation officer. She, however, argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve part of her previously suspended sentence.

[8] “[A] trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[9] “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. “If this discretion were not [given] to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Id. Upon determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may “[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(h)(3). Further, it is well settled that a single “violation of a condition of probation is enough to support a probation revocation.” Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

[10] Our review of the record reveals that the trial court had a sufficient basis for its decision to order Grace to serve a portion of her previously suspended sentence. Grace admitted to every allegation in the probation department's petitions to revoke her probation. Specifically, Grace admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine twice, failing to meet with her probation officer multiple times, and failing to submit to drug screens multiple times. Considering the record before us, the sanction imposed was well within the trial court's discretion. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.

[11] Affirmed.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Grace also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve part of her suspended sentence because she did not admit that she had violated her probation by committing a new crime and by recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally failing to pay her restitution while on probation. We note that a single “violation of a condition of probation is enough to support a probation revocation.” Pierce, 44 N.E.3d at 755. Because there are many other sufficient bases supporting the probation revocation and a single violation of a condition of probation supports a revocation of probation, we need not address these arguments.

Pyle, Judge.

Chief Judge Altice and Judge DeBoer concur. Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.