Toby Allen Atha, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Toby Allen Atha (“Atha”) appeals the revocation of his probation. Specifically, although he acknowledges that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation, Atha argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his entire 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 Atha to serve his entire previously suspended sentence.

Facts

[3] In November 2022, forty-three-year-old Atha pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Level 3 felony dealing in methamphetamine. In exchange for Atha's guilty plea, the State dismissed a Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine charge. Further, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Atha to a fourteen (14) year sentence, which included five (5) years executed in the Department of Correction (“the DOC”) and nine (9) years suspended with two (2) years on probation.

[4] The conditions of Atha's probation required him to abstain from the use of controlled substances, legend drugs, and any THC variants. Further, the probation conditions required Atha to complete any recommended substance abuse treatment program and to not commit any additional criminal offenses. Atha began his probation on December 26, 2024.

[5] At the end of April 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Atha's probation. The petition alleged that Atha had: (1) admitted using methamphetamine in January 2025; (2) tested positive for methamphetamine in February 2025; (3) tested positive for methamphetamine and THC in March and April 2025 while he was participating in a substance abuse treatment program; and (4) failed to complete a substance abuse treatment program.

[6] Two months later, in June 2025, the State filed an amended petition to revoke Atha's probation. The amended petition included a new allegation that Atha had tested positive for methamphetamine, THC, and fentanyl in May 2025.

[7] In mid-June 2025, the State filed a second amended petition to revoke Atha's probation. The second amended petition included a new allegation that Atha had been charged in Jennings County with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine, Level 4 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Level 4 felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“the Jennings County case”). The second amended petition also included a new allegation that Atha had failed to successfully complete a substance abuse treatment program. Specifically, according to the petition, Atha had begun participating in a second substance abuse treatment program in May 2025 but had left the program against medical advice in early June 2025.

[8] In late June 2025, the State filed a third amended petition to revoke Atha's probation. The third amended petition included a new allegation that Atha had been charged, in the Jennings County case, with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class C misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[9] During a June 2025 hearing, Atha admitted that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by using methamphetamine, THC, and fentanyl. Specifically, Atha, who had begun his probation in December 2024, admitted that he had used methamphetamine in January and February 2025. He also admitted that he had used both methamphetamine and THC in March and April 2025. Lastly, Atha admitted that he had used methamphetamine, THC, and fentanyl in May 2025. In addition, when the trial court pointed out that, according to the DOC website, Atha had been incarcerated in the DOC six times, Atha acknowledged that he had spent over twenty years of his life in the DOC.

[10] At the end of the hearing, the trial court stated as follows:

I just don't enjoy sending people to prison, I really don't. Okay. But when you refuse to follow the rules, you don't leave me much choice․ We gave you a chance to go to prison for a period of time, get out, and start probation. As soon as you get out, you start using drugs. Okay? So, I'm sorry, Mr. Atha, but you're going to have to go to prison.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 16, 17). Thereafter, the trial court ordered Atha to serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[11] Atha now appeals.

Decision

[12] Atha argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his entire previously suspended sentence after he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. He asks this Court to “reverse the trial court's sentencing order and remand with instructions to place [him] back on probation.” (Atha's Br. 12).

[13] 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).

[14] Here, Atha, who was on probation following a conviction for Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine, admitted that he had violated the conditions of his probation by using methamphetamine, THC, and fentanyl. Specifically, our review of the record reveals that Atha began using methamphetamine shortly after being placed on probation. Further, Atha admitted to monthly use of methamphetamine from January to May 2025. He also admitted that he had used THC and fentanyl while on probation. Further, as noted by the trial court, Atha has a lengthy criminal history that has resulted in multiple incarcerations in the DOC. Indeed, Atha acknowledged that he had spent more than twenty years of his life in the DOC. Based on the facts and circumstances in this case, the trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered Atha to serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[15] Affirmed.

Pyle, Judge.

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