RICHARDSON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Andre Richardson violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the entirety of his four-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Richardson now appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2023, Richardson, then twenty years old, was communicating with a fourteen-year-old girl via social media. The two sent each other sexual messages, including Richardson sending videos of himself masturbating. On January 23, Richardson snuck into the girl's house and had sex with her. The girl's sister informed law enforcement, and Richardson was later arrested and charged with Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Level 6 felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors.

[3] On September 9, 2024, Richardson pled guilty to the Level 5 felony pursuant to a plea agreement and the Level 6 felony was dismissed. The court sentenced Richardson to the following: 180 days executed in jail, 180 days executed on community corrections work release, 1100 days suspended, and four years on reporting probation.¹ As conditions of probation, Richardson was to participate in and complete a sex-offender-treatment program and comply with the conditions of his work-release program. Additionally, Richardson was prohibited from using social media “for the purpose of personal and sexual gratification.” Tr. Vol. II p. 7.

[4] Richardson began work release on February 1, 2025. Richardson was only authorized to go from the work-release facility to his workplace and back. On June 16, he used a social media site to communicate with a woman. He then left work without permission to meet up with the woman at her private residence and have sex.

[5] On June 18, the State filed a motion to revoke Richardson's probation, asserting he violated numerous terms, including (1) failing to participate in and complete a sex-offender-treatment program, (2) utilizing social media for sexual gratification, and (3) visiting unauthorized locations while on work release. A hearing on the motion to revoke was held on July 31, and Richardson admitted to the above allegations. A dispositional hearing was held on August 21. At the hearing, Richardson's community-corrections supervisor confirmed Richardson was not authorized to leave his workplace on June 16 and Richardson had failed to engage in the required sex-offender-treatment program. The court revoked Richardson's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his four-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction. Richardson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Richardson challenges the trial court's decision to impose the four-year sentence as a sanction for violating the terms of his probation. 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. Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) (2015) 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.

[7] Richardson does not dispute that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, he argues his violations were “technical” in nature and thus do not warrant a full execution of his sentence. Appellant's Br. p. 8. We disagree.

[8] Richardson was convicted of Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor after using social media to arrange a sexual encounter with a fourteen-year-old girl. As a result, he was ordered to, among other things, complete a sex-offender treatment program, comply with the requirements of his work release, and refrain from using social media for sexual gratification. But barely five months into his four-year probation, Richardson used social media to arrange a sexual encounter and left work without permission to have this encounter while he was on work release. Furthermore, he did not complete the required sex-offender-treatment program. These were more than mere “technical” violations and go to the heart of Richardson's underlying case. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in sanctioning Richardson.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There is a discrepancy in the executed sentence between the abstract of judgement—which indicates Richardson is to serve 180 days executed in jail and 180 days on community corrections—and the sentencing order—which indicates Richardson is to serve 180 days executed in jail, 180 days on work release, and 90 days on home detention. See App. Vol. II pp. 106, 109.

Scheele, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.