REVELEE v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] After pleading guilty to possessing narcotics and child pornography, Andrew Revelee violated the terms of his probation by engaging in nearly identical conduct again while on probation. Revelee admitted to the probation violations, and the trial court revoked all three-and-one-half years of his probation. Revelee now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by executing his entire suspended sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2020, Revelee pled guilty to possession of a narcotic drug while in possession of a firearm as a Level 5 felony and possession of child pornography as a Level 5 felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Revelee to six years executed at the Indiana Department of Correction, with three-and-one-half of those years suspended to probation.

[4] As part of his probation, Revelee agreed in relevant part to (1) “not possess or use any firearm, destructive device or other dangerous weapon,” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 197; (2) “not engage in a sexual relationship with any person who has children under the age of 16 years unless given permission by the court and your treatment provider,” id. at 202; (3) “have no contact with any person under the age of 16 unless you receive court approval or successfully complete a court-approved sex offender treatment program, pursuant to IC 35-38-2-2.4,” id.; and (4) be “prohibited from accessing, viewing, or using internet websites and computer applications that depict obscene matter as defined by IC 35-49-2-1 or child pornography as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 2256(8)” and “not possess or use any data encryption technique or program to conceal your internet activity,” id. at 203.

[5] In November 2024, the State filed a Request for Probation Violation Hearing, alleging that during a “routine compliance check” at the end of October, the supervising officer discovered that Revelee was in possession of marijuana and had been in “contact with a minor child.” Appellant's App. Vol. II at 213. In particular, the State alleged as follows:

The probationer was located at the neighbor's home ․ It was discovered that probationer has a child with the woman next door ․ and was at the home frequently. A search of the offender's phone showed he had a video surveillance application with a live feed of [the neighbor's home] and also in the child's bedroom. The search of the probationer's phone revealed over 3000 pornographic images/videos stored in a “hidden” album, a text chain with “Tee” was found and it appears that probationer was purchasing marijuana, multiple photos showing probationer had in his possession/under control or knowingly or with reckless disregard had access to a knife that was more than a common pocket knife and probationer's phone showed numerous social media accounts were found, some of the applications had messaging platforms.

Id. at 213–14. Revelee admitted to the probation violation.

[6] At the ensuing disposition hearing, Revelee testified about his chronic systolic congestive heart failure. Revelee characterized his probation violations as “stray[ing],” Tr. Vol. II at 12, 13,¹ and he indicated that he is unsure if his neighbor's child is actually his.

[7] The trial court found as mitigating factors that Revelee admitted to the violations and has a medical condition, but it gave both those factors “little weight.” Tr. Vol. II at 30–31. The trial court found as aggravating factors that Revelee has a prior criminal history, he has a moderate risk to reoffend, “his violation showed disdain for the Court's authority in the nature and circumstances of the violation,” and he is a “risk to the public's safety.” Id. at 30. Concerning the last two factors, the trial court specifically stated:

[J]ust the admission on the probation violation alone is troubling. The marijuana use, the use of pornographic images at this point in time as a sex offender, as someone who was about to be released from probation. It's extremely troubling that you had 3000 images of pornography when offenses [sic] possession of child pornography. It's extremely concerning that you had a nanny cam set up to watch the child next door, that was yours, wasn't yours, but you weren't supposed to have ․ contact with a minor anyway, let alone by video, and the weapon. The fact that you reported to probation and didn't get caught till the end doesn't mean you were compliant with the law or with your conditions of probation.

Id. at 30. The trial court determined the aggravators outweighed the mitigators and revoked the entirety—three-and-one-half years—of Revelee's sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Executing Revelee's Suspended Sentence

[8] Revelee contends the trial court abused its discretion by executing his entire suspended sentence. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). We review a trial court's sentencing decision on a probation violation for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App 2005)). “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.’ ” Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188). “We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Id. (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999)).

[9] Revelee specifically argues that his probation violations did not warrant fully executing his probation because of his heart condition and because “[h]is violations were solely violations of the technical terms of probation.” Appellant's Br. at 11. We cannot agree. First, the trial court assigned “little weight” to Revelee's heart condition and resulting medical needs. Tr. Vol. II at 31. We cannot and will not reweigh the evidence. See Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551). Second, Revelee's violations were not mere technical violations. Violating probation by engaging in the same or nearly identical conduct that led a person to being on probation in the first place is one of the most aggravating ways to violate probation. See McCauley v. State, 22 N.E.3d 743, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (upholding sanction for probation violation where defendant committed alcohol-related offense while on probation for similar crime), trans. denied. Fully executing suspended time in this situation will hardly ever be error—the probationer has demonstrated a disregard for the law and a pattern of undeterred criminal conduct despite intervention. Cf. Fonner v. State, 876 N.E.2d 340, 343–44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding placement with the DOC as opposed to probation given defendant's criminal record and prior failures in community corrections). Here, Revelee possessed drugs, a weapon, and more than 3,000 pornographic images and videos—nearly identical conduct to the convictions that placed him on probation. Revelee had contact with a minor and even had a live video feed of that minor's bedroom.

[10] Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by executing the entirety of Revelee's suspended sentence. We therefore affirm the trial court's decision.

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 28(D) and Appendix A, Item 2(a), “All pages of the Transcript, including the front page ․, shall be consecutively numbered at the bottom. Each volume shall begin with numeral one on its front page.” Here, the front page of Transcript Volume II is not numbered; the second page is where the numbering begins. For ease of reference, we conform our page numbers to those used by the court reporter.

Felix, Judge.

May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.