Gage Anthony Mathes, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Gage Anthony Mathes appeals the revocation of his probation, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 800 days of his suspended sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] In October 2022, Mathes pled guilty pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement to Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine in Cause No. 49D20-2104-F5-13456 (No. 456) and to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine in Cause No. 49D20-2209-F6-24142 (No. 142). The State dismissed the remaining charges under each of those cause numbers, all charges in a third case, as well as a pending probation violation in another cause number. In No. 456, the trial court sentenced Mathes to 1095 days with 987 days suspended to probation with one year on home detention. The trial court sentenced Mathes in No. 142 to a concurrent term of 545 days, suspended to probation. His conditions of probation included that he not commit any criminal offense.

[4] On February 24, 2023, the State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that Mathes committed new criminal offenses, namely Level 6 felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, and Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury in Cause No. 49D34-2302-F6- 5316 (No. 316). The notice also alleged that Mathes had not yet reported to probation and failed to appear for two scheduled appointments. On April 5, 2023, the State filed an amended notice of probation violation alleging that Mathes committed a second criminal offense, Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy under Cause No. 49D34-2303-CM-9204 (No. 204).

[5] On April 10, 2023, Mathes pled guilty by plea agreement to Class A misdemeanor domestic battery in No. 316 and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy in No. 204, for which he received consecutive but suspended sentences. As part of the plea, Mathes admitted to violating probation in both No. 456 and No. 142, and the court continued Mathes on probation in those causes. The court ordered the sentences for the probation violations served concurrently with the other sentences. At some point, Mathes was placed in Drug Treatment Court (DTC) in Nos. 456 and 142, although he was ultimately terminated from the program in December 2024 after failing to attend appointments and receiving new criminal charges.

[6] Meanwhile, the State filed additional probation violation notices on October 30, 2023, December 15, 2023, and December 5, 2024. Together, these notices alleged that Mathes failed to: (1) report to probation as directed; (2) refrain from using illegal drugs; (3) submit to drug screening as directed; (4) pay court-ordered obligations; (5) enroll in and complete substance abuse evaluation and treatment; and (6) refrain from committing new criminal offenses. The new criminal offenses included charges of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine in Cause No. 49D18-2312-F6-34825 (No. 825) and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia in cause 49D23-2412-CM-34399 (No. 399).

[7] At a March 19, 2025 hearing, Mathes pled guilty in an open plea in No. 399, and the trial court sentenced him to twenty days in jail.¹ The court then found Mathes had violated his probation in Nos. 456, 142, and 316 by committing this new criminal offense.

[8] As to the sanction for the violations, Mathes testified on his own behalf, stating that he had struggled with mental illness since childhood and, for a time, was not taking his medications and was self-medicating with illegal drugs, which led to his addiction issues. He explained that during the time he was to be participating in DTC, he witnessed the murder of his good friend and spiraled into emotional trauma. Mathes testified that he was now ready to go into treatment and that, from jail, he had reached out on his own to two treatment facilities and been accepted into their programs. He said that he had been sober since going to jail in December 2024 and that his parents and grandfather would support him. Upon the court's inquiry, a probation officer reported that this was Mathes's second violation in No. 456 and that he attended only “a handful” of probation appointments. Transcript at 67.

[9] The trial court revoked Mathes's probation in No. 456 and ordered him to serve 800 days of his previously-suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC) less credit for 171 days. The court advised Mathes that he could petition for sentence modification after serving two-thirds of his sentence. The court also pointed out to Mathes that substance abuse programs would be available to him in the DOC, and its written sentencing order included Purposeful Incarceration as a sentencing condition. In Nos. 142 and 316, the trial court revoked probation and terminated it unsuccessfully but did not impose any additional sanctions, noting to Mathes that he was thereby “getting a break” on his sentence as approximately 700 additional days could have been added to the 800-day sentence that was imposed. Id. at 71. Mathes now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] 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). Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the trial court has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion and reversible only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of his probation at any time before the termination of the probationary period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, then the court may order execution of the sentence that had been suspended.” Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed on the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing).

[11] On appeal, Mathes contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve 800 of the 987 remaining days of his suspended sentence because the new possession of paraphernalia offense “was relatively minor,” he saved the State time and expense by admitting to the violation, and it was his lifelong mental health struggles that led to his substance abuse and associated drug related offenses. Appellant's Brief at 9. He acknowledges having a “considerable criminal history,” but suggests that most of his offenses were misdemeanors or low-level felonies and that he “has demonstrated that ․ he has the potential to be successfully rehabilitated.” Id. at 10. Mathes's arguments are unavailing.

[12] Even if his recent misdemeanor conviction was “relatively minor” as he claims, we agree with the State that Mathes has engaged in a consistent pattern of criminal conduct while on probation and has not, as he claims, demonstrated the potential to be successfully rehabilitated through probation and community-based programs. He continues to commit offenses while on probation. And the new criminal charges aside, Mathes failed to attend probation appointments, his eligibility for DTC was rescinded after he failed to participate in it, and he acknowledged that his three months of recent sobriety since going to jail in December was “the longest [he]’d been sober in some years.” Transcript at 64. This record reflects that Mathes needs the structured setting of the DOC to successfully engage in and complete substance abuse treatment.

[13] In apparent acknowledgement of Mathes's testimony about his desire and motivation to participate in substance abuse treatment, the trial court reminded him that the DOC offers substance use treatment programs and that he could later petition for modification of his sentence. The trial court also provided Mathes “a break on his sentence” by not imposing any sanctions for his violations of probation in Nos. 316 and 142. Id. at 71.

[14] In sum, Mathes has not established that the trial court's decision to revoke his suspended sentence in No. 456 for his violations of probation and order him to serve 800 days in the DOC was an abuse of discretion.²

[15] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The felony possession of cocaine charge in No. 825 was set for trial.

2.   To the extent that Mathes asserts that the trial court violated his due process and due course of law rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 12 and 16 of the Indiana Constitution, Appellant's Brief at 7, he makes no further mention or analysis under those provisions, and his arguments are thus waived. Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8).

Altice, Chief Judge.

May, J. and Foley, J., concur.