MOORE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Anthony Moore (“Moore”) appeals the revocation of his probation. Specifically, although he acknowledges that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, Moore argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 1,300 days of his 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 Moore to serve 1,300 days of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation.

Facts

[3] In 2018, a law enforcement officer stopped a vehicle in which Moore was a passenger. During a search of the vehicle, the officer found forty-five grams of methamphetamine. Also, in 2018, the State charged Moore with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine and Level 2 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine.

[4] In November 2021, Moore pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Level 4 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, and the State dismissed the dealing charge. The trial court sentenced Moore, pursuant to his plea agreement, to five (5) years in the Department of Correction. Further, the trial court awarded Moore credit for 414 days served and suspended the 1,411-day remainder of Moore's sentence to probation. The terms of Moore's probation required him to: (1) complete a substance abuse treatment program; (2) abstain from the use of illegal drugs and controlled substances, including methamphetamine; and (3) meet with his probation officer any time he was directed to do so.

[5] In September 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Moore's probation. The petition specifically alleged that Moore had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine in October 2023, January 2024, and August 2024. The State also alleged that Moore had failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program. The petition provided that Moore had enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program at a community mental health center but had failed to regularly attend the program because of his work schedule. The petition further provided that the probation officer had given Moore information about an online substance abuse treatment program to accommodate Moore's work schedule. However, the probation officer had never received verification that Moore had completed the program. In December 2024, the State filed an amended revocation petition, which included an allegation that Moore had failed to report for a meeting with his probation officer in November 2024.

[6] The trial court scheduled a revocation hearing for December 5, 2024. The day before the hearing, Moore filed a motion to continue the hearing because he was participating in an inpatient substance abuse treatment program. The trial court denied the motion. When Moore failed to attend the hearing, the trial court issued a warrant for Moore's arrest. In March 2025, a law enforcement officer arrested Moore, who had not completed the inpatient substance abuse treatment program.

[7] In May 2025, the trial court held the revocation hearing and heard the facts as set forth above. Moore's probation officer testified that Moore was not a good candidate for continued probation and recommended that the trial court order Moore to serve 1,300 days of his previously suspended sentence.

[8] Moore admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by using methamphetamine, failing to complete a substance abuse treatment program, and failing to meet with his probation officer in November 2024. Moore testified that his relapses on methamphetamine had been “bumps in the road[ ]” and that he had been unable to complete a substance abuse treatment program because of his job as a heavy equipment operator and because of family members’ illnesses. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15). He asked the trial court to order him to serve 365 days of his previously suspended sentence.

[9] After hearing the parties’ arguments, the trial court stated as follows:

I don't believe Mr. Moore is going to be compliant with probation. He makes choices about things that are more important to him: the job, family, things of that nature. So he's going to do what he wants to do. I think that's clear. I don't think there's any point in him continuing on probation in this case. I think that the State's recommendation's reasonable. Court adopts it as the disposition. I'm going to revoke 1,300 days executed to the Department of Correction. Probation terminates, being unsuccessful.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 26).

[10] Moore now appeals.

Decision

[11] Moore argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 1,300 days of his previously suspended sentence after he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We disagree.

[12] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Once a trial court has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial courts might be less inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decision for a probation violation is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person has violated his probation before termination of the probationary period, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

[13] Here, Moore, who was on probation following his conviction for Level 4 felony conspiracy to commit dealing in methamphetamine, admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Specifically, the evidence reveals that Moore tested positive three times for methamphetamine, failed to successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program, and failed to meet with his probation officer in November 2024. The trial court found that Moore had simply chosen not to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court further found that there was no point in continuing Moore on probation because he had demonstrated that he was not going to comply with probation. Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered Moore to serve 1,300 days of his previously suspended sentence.

[14] Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.