Joseph A. Beeks, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joseph A. Beeks appeals the trial court's determination that he violated the terms of his probation and its accompanying sanction. He presents two issues for our review, which we restate as: (1) whether the State presented sufficient evidence that he violated his probation and (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning him. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, a jury found Beeks guilty of Level 6 felony pointing a firearm. The trial court sentenced Beeks to one and a half years, with 240 days executed on electronic home detention through Community Corrections and 308 days suspended to probation. His probation conditions included that he not consume illegal drugs or alcohol and that he submit to random drug screens.

[3] In February 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Beeks’ probation alleging he violated probation after a drug screen he submitted in December 2024 revealed the presence of cocaine metabolite. In April 2025, the State filed an amended petition to revoke, alleging additional violations for failing to submit a drug screen on April 7 and for testing positive for alcohol on April 28.

[4] A revocation hearing was held in June 2025. At the hearing, the court admitted, without objection, a certified copy of the lab results showing Beeks tested positive for cocaine metabolite in December 2024. See Ex. Vol. III p. 7. Sara Witta, Beeks’ probation officer, testified, again without objection, that Beeks submitted a drug screen in December 2024 that tested positive for cocaine metabolite. Beeks also testified at the hearing and admitted he did not submit a drug screen as requested on April 7, 2025, and that he consumed alcohol while on probation.

[5] Following the hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Beeks violated the terms of his probation as claimed in all three of the State's allegations. The court ordered Beeks to serve 120 days of his previously suspended sentence on electronic home detention through Community Corrections, extended Beeks’ probation term by six months, and ordered him to submit to daily call-ins for drug screening and complete a substance-abuse program. Beeks now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] 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). A trial court has discretion to set the conditions of probation and “to revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). Revocation of probation is a two-step process. Id. The court must first determine whether a violation occurred. Id. An offender need only violate one condition of probation for the trial court to revoke his probation. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. If the trial court finds the defendant violated the conditions of probation, the court may continue the probation, extend the term of probation, or “[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) (2015).

I. Proof of Violation

[7] A probation revocation proceeding is civil in nature, and therefore, the State must prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, “we use the same standard as in any other sufficiency question[,]” id., and consider only the evidence “most favorable to the judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses[,]” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We will affirm a probation revocation “[i]f there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that a defendant has violated any terms of probation[.]” Id. at 639-40.

[8] The court found Beeks violated probation in three ways: (1) testing positive for cocaine, (2) testing positive for alcohol, and (3) failing to submit a drug screen. Beeks argues this Court should disregard the first violation, stating he is “challeng[ing] the chain-of-custody of the urine drug screen that he submitted.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. However, Beeks fails to support this assertion with cogent argument, nor does he provide the relevant standard of review or citation to authorities as required by Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Furthermore, he did not object on this basis at the hearing, and in fact did not object at all to testimony regarding his failed drug screen or the admission of the results. As such, he has waived this issue for our review. See Price v. State, 255 N.E.3d 554, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (failure to comply with Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A) results in waiver of claim); Jordan v. State, 60 N.E.3d 1062, 1066 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (failure to object waives review of claim).

[9] As for the other two allegations, Beeks acknowledges that he tested positive for alcohol and missed a drug screen in violation of the terms of his probation. However, he gives various reasons why these should not result in a violation, including that his doctor told him he should drink alcohol and that he was unavailable to submit a drug screen due to work. These are requests to reweigh evidence, which we will not do. See Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639. Beeks has failed to show us the trial court erred in determining he violated probation.

II. Sanction

[10] Beeks next challenges the sanction imposed by the trial court. As noted above, Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) offers the trial court the following options when it finds a defendant has violated the terms of his probation: (1) “[c]ontinue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions[,]” (2) “[e]xtend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period[,]” or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” We review a trial court's selection of a sanction 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.

[11] Beeks argues the trial court's sanction is “excessive and inappropriate” in light of his health issues and that his violations were “minor[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 15. We disagree. The sanction was far from excessive—it involved no jail time and required Beeks to serve 120 days on community corrections, less than half the time the court could have imposed. And while the court extended Beeks’ probation time, it again did so for only six months, rather than the year permitted by statute. Such a sanction was well within the court's discretion given while on probation Beeks tested positive for both cocaine and alcohol and failed to submit a drug screen. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[12] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.