MONROE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Justin Monroe appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and imposing his previously suspended sentence. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In October 2024, Monroe pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony nonsupport of a dependent child.¹ Per the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Monroe to 912 days in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). The court ordered 220 days executed, gave Monroe credit for 110 actual days served plus 110 days good time credit, and ordered the balance of his sentence suspended. The conditions of his probation included to maintain full-time employment; file state and federal income tax returns; meet with his probation officer; and pay child support and arrears. Monroe was released to probation on October 16 with instructions to report to his probation officer on October 22. He failed to report as instructed.

[3] The State filed a petition alleging Monroe violated his probation by not reporting to his probation officer. On February 18, 2025, Monroe admitted to violating the terms of probation by neglecting to report. The trial court ordered Monroe to serve 186 days of his suspended sentence in the DOC—time for which he had already accrued credit—and returned him to probation for the balance of his sentence. In addition to the original conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Monroe to resolve a warrant in a separate case in Marion County. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 26. Addressing Monroe directly, the trial court explained why it was releasing him to probation:

I am interested to see you on probation. I'm interested to see you start paying support as ordered. Again, I guess, you know, within a week of me sentencing you, the violation was out. So, it's not a real good track record to begin with. But I'm interested to see what you can do on probation.

Id. (emphasis added).

[4] In May, the State filed a second petition alleging Monroe violated probation. Specifically, the State alleged Monroe violated probation by failing to meet with his probation officer; not providing proof of employment; not providing proof of income tax filings; not addressing the active warrant from Marion County; and failing to pay child support and arrears. On July 1, Monroe admitted to the violations the State had alleged. Given the “second violation in the same case and within a short period of time,” the trial court found “full revocation [of probation was] appropriate.” Id. at 41. The court ordered the remaining 506 days of Monroe's sentence to be executed in the DOC.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation.

[5] Probation is a matter of grace, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Probation revocation is a two-step process: first, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation has occurred; second, if a violation occurred, the court must determine the appropriate sanction. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). When a probationer admits to violating the terms of probation, “the court can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants revocation.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008).

[6] A trial court may impose one or more of the following sanctions for a probation violation:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h) (2015). We review trial court sanction decisions for abuse of discretion. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616.

[7] In this case, Monroe accepts violation “of a single condition of probation is enough to justify revocation.” Appellant's Br. at 8 (citing Jones v. State, 689 N.E.2d 759, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)). Selection of an appropriate sanction depends on the severity of the defendant's probation violation. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[8] Monroe twice admitted failing to comply with the conditions of probation. He admitted failing to report to his probation officer within a week of being released to probation. Rather than revoking probation then, the trial court extended its grace because it was “interested to see what [Monroe could] do on probation.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 26. During the most recent violation proceedings, Monroe admitted to failing to: meet with his probation officer; provide proof of employment; offer proof of income tax filings; address an active warrant in Marion County; and pay child support payments and arrears. As the State points out, this last violation was particularly egregious because he “failed to do things that were materially related to his underlying criminal conduct[.]”² Appellee's Br. at 8. The trial court gave Monroe ample opportunity to comply with the terms of his probation. A trial court is given considerable leeway in a probation revocation proceeding, and the court here did not abuse its discretion in ordering Monroe to execute all of his suspended sentence.

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Monroe to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5(a) (2014).

2.   As of July 1, 2025, Monroe owed $19,061.13 in arrears. Id. at 40.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.