James K. Stocker, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] James K. Stocker (“Stocker”) appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation. Stocker raises one issue for our review, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the balance of his previously suspended sentence and ordering him to serve 360 days in the Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 20, 2023, Stocker was charged with Count 1, obstruction of justice during the investigation of a domestic violence case as a Level 5 Felony and Count 2, obstruction of justice as a Level 6 Felony. On January 23, 2024, pursuant to a plea agreement, Count 1 was dismissed and Stocker pleaded guilty to Count 2, obstruction of justice as a Level 6 felony. The court imposed a sentence of 360 days in the DOC, fully suspended to probation. The terms of probation included refraining from violating any federal, state, or local law, reporting any contacts with law enforcement, abstaining from the consumption of alcohol or illegal drugs, and submitting to alcohol and drug testing as ordered.

[3] On October 21, 2024, new charges were filed against Stocker for domestic battery and resisting law enforcement, both as a Class A misdemeanor. Upon arrest, Stocker was given a breath test that indicated a breath alcohol content (“BAC”) of 0.211. Subsequently, the State filed a petition to revoke Stocker's probation, alleging Stocker violated his probation by committing additional offenses and consuming alcohol. On December 12, 2024, Stocker pleaded guilty to the two Class A misdemeanor offenses. Later that date, Stocker admitted to violating his probation by committing domestic battery, resisting arrest, and consuming alcohol. As a sanction for violating the conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Stocker to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence of 360 days in the DOC. Stocker now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Stocker argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering execution of the balance of the previously suspended sentence, pointing out that he had been on probation for 272 days and this was his first probation violation. “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). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if these conditions are violated. Id.

[5] If the trial court determines a probationer has violated a condition of probation, it may impose one or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) 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).

[6] We review a trial court's sanction upon a probation violation for an abuse of discretion. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. Further, on appeal we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or reassessing the credibility of the witnesses. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008).

[7] Stocker does not dispute that he violated conditions of his probation. Rather, Stocker challenges the trial court's decision to revoke the balance of his previously suspended sentence arguing that the trial court's decision to require Stocker to serve 360 days at DOC was an abuse of discretion. Stocker claims that because Stocker had successfully served nine months of his probation without violation, the new criminal offenses were relatively minor, and he admitted to the violations, he should have a less severe sanction. We note, nonetheless, that the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Luke v. State¸ 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Here, Stocker committed multiple violations of his probation, having violated his probation by committing two criminal offenses—domestic battery and resisting law enforcement—and consuming alcohol. Stocker's attempt to minimize his criminal acts as “relatively minor” is unpersuasive, as Stocker's long-time girlfriend was the victim in both the present case and the domestic battery case. Next, Stocker pleaded guilty to the new crimes and received the benefit of a concurrent sentence of 240 days for the misdemeanor convictions. Finally, Stocker's BAC level was significant, nearly three times the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. The trial court was well within its discretion to conclude Stocker was no longer a viable candidate for community placement or probation services and that imposing the balance of Stocker's suspended sentence was appropriate. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked the balance of the previously suspended sentence and ordered Stocker to serve 360 days in the DOC.

[8] Affirmed.

Foley, Judge.

Judges Kenworthy and Scheele concur. Kenworthy, J. and Scheele, J., concur.