BAUGH v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ricky Marvin Baugh appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violation of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August 2021, Baugh, then age 63, pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine. He was sentenced to 6 years, with 3 years to serve and 3 years suspended to probation.

[3] After serving the executed portion of his sentence, Baugh started probation in October 2022. In December 2023, the State alleged that Baugh violated his probation by using meth. Baugh admitted violating his probation, and the trial court ordered him to serve 1 of the 3 suspended years and extended his probation for 1 year.

[4] Baugh returned to probation in July 2024. In March 2025, Baugh took a urine drug screen at the probation department, which indicated a preliminary positive for meth. Baugh denied using meth, so the probation department sent the sample to Redwood Toxicology for confirmation testing. That result was also positive for meth. The next month, the State alleged that Baugh violated his probation by using meth.

[5] At the fact-finding hearing, Baugh continued to deny using meth. He testified that he had been testing negative for drugs since returning to probation in July 2024 and that he was making progress in Moral Reconation Therapy. He speculated that other medicines he was taking—prescription cough medicine and an over-the-counter pill called Jet Alert—caused the positive result. The trial court said it would like for Baugh “to have a winning case” considering his improvements, but it found that he didn't, as Redwood was an accredited lab and Baugh hadn't presented any evidence of a false positive. Tr. p. 39. The court found that Baugh violated his probation and proceeded to sanctions. The court highlighted that Baugh had a “lengthy” criminal history, which started in 1977 and included substance offenses, and that he “continue[d] to violate” his probation for “the same reason for which [he was] placed” on it. Id. at 45, 48. Accordingly, the court ordered Baugh to serve 21 months in prison, which was “less than the maximum” of the 24 months that it could have imposed. Id. at 48. The court noted, however, that Baugh “deserve[d]” the maximum. Id.

[6] Baugh now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Baugh contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve 21 months for violating his probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[8] Baugh doesn't dispute that he tested positive for meth in violation of his probation. Instead, he argues that “one failed drug screen ․ does not warrant serving twenty-one (21) months in the Department of Correction[ ] when he was making progress with his probation.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. This argument, however, ignores the context in which that failed drug screen occurred. In 2021, Baugh pled guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in meth. After serving time in prison, he was placed on probation. He then violated his probation in 2023 by using meth. After serving more time in prison, he was returned to probation. He then violated his probation again in 2025 by using meth. Contrary to Baugh's claim, this is not a technical violation of his probation. He violated his probation a second time by using the very drug that he was on probation for dealing. And, of course, this happened in the context of Baugh's lengthy criminal history. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Baugh to serve 21 months in prison.

[9] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.