HARPER v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Joshua Harper appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and order that he serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Harper contends the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed its sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On October 24, 2023, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Harper pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in bodily injury to a person less than fourteen years of age. The trial court sentenced Harper to three years, with one year executed and two years suspended to probation. As a condition of probation, Harper was ordered to submit to random drug screens and not to use any controlled substance.

[3] On February 28, 2025, while on probation, Harper tested positive for methamphetamine. The State filed a motion to revoke Harper's probation on March 12. On June 17, he admitted to violating the terms of probation by using methamphetamine.

[4] Pike County Probation Officer Chris Yon submitted an addendum pre-sentence investigation report ahead of the court's sentencing hearing on July 8. The report detailed Harper's criminal history and compliance on court-supervised release. Harper had two other felony convictions and twelve misdemeanor convictions at the time of the hearing. Of the six times Harper was previously ordered to probation, it was revoked twice and he was unsuccessfully discharged once. Probation Officer Yon also testified that Harper was discharged from pretrial work release in this case after he violated the court's no-contact order. Harper testified that he had been sober for twenty years and relapsed after a family member passed away. He asked the trial court to extend his probation and order him to participate in substance-abuse treatment.

[5] The trial court found Harper had a “significant” criminal history, he previously violated conditions of his release, and prior leniency from the court had not deterred his criminal behavior. App. Vol. II p. 76. The court revoked Harper's probation and ordered him to serve the entire two-year suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Harper now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Harper contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation because he had a “long history with methamphetamine use” and “never had the benefit of court supervised drug rehabilitation.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. He also argues “probation should not be revoked unless a defendant is beyond the rehabilitative efforts of the court.” Id. at 9.

[7] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'g denied. “Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). 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.”

[8] 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.

[9] Here, conditions of Harper's probation included not consuming any controlled substance. Harper admitted that he violated his probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. His argument that the court failed to exhaust less restrictive options, such as court supervised drug rehabilitation, before revoking his probation is unpersuasive. First, the court was not required to consider less restrictive options than probation revocation following a violation. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (2015). Second, Harper squandered multiple rehabilitative opportunities, and he continued to engage in criminal behavior. Under these circumstances the court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Harper to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the DOC, where he could receive substance-abuse treatment in a secure environment. See Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (holding no abuse of discretion in revoking defendant's probation after multiple probation violations); see also Overstreet, 136 N.E.3d at 264 (noting substance-abuse treatment is available for incarcerated individuals in the DOC). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

[10] Affirmed.

Scheele, Judge.

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