Calvin Davis, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Calvin Davis appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court when it revoked his probation. Finding that the trial court acted within its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June 2016, Davis pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony battery causing serious bodily injury and admitted that he is a habitual offender. He was sentenced to twelve years, four of which were to be served on work release with the remaining eight years suspended to probation.

[3] In May 2018, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Davis had tested positive for methamphetamine on two occasions and THC on one occasion and that he had failed to report to a scheduled appointment with his probation officer. Davis failed to appear for the hearing on his violations, and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. Ultimately, he admitted to violating and was returned to probation.

[4] In May 2019, the State filed another notice of violation, alleging that Davis had failed to submit to required drug screens on six different dates, tested positive for THC on two different occasions, and failed to comply with substance abuse treatment. In July, the State amended the notice of violation to add an allegation that he had been charged with eight felony drug counts, one misdemeanor drug count, and a felony count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The matter was resolved in 2021 when Davis admitted to the violations, and the court restored him to probation and ordered him to attend treatment for his substance abuse.

[5] In February 2023, the State again filed a notice of probation violation in this case when Davis was charged with Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm, Level 5 felony dealing in marijuana, Level 6 felony escape, and Level 5 felony possession of methamphetamine. In 2025, Davis admitted that he violated the terms of his probation, and the court imposed four years of his previously suspended sentence. Davis now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] A trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or where the court misinterprets the law. Jackson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 1040, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). To determine whether the sanction issued by the trial court is appropriate, we consider the severity of the violation. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013). Additional considerations include the defendant's criminal history, his past violations, and his unwillingness or inability to complete ordered programs. See Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188.

[7] Having concluded that Davis violated his probation, the trial court could impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue Davis’ probation, with or without modifying the conditions; (2) extend his probationary period for up to one year; or (3) order execution of all or part of his previously suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). Here, the trial court chose option three and ordered the execution of four years of Davis’ previously suspended eight-year sentence.

[8] In challenging the court's sanction as excessive, Davis asserts that this violation arose from a mental health crisis, that prior to the crisis he had been progressing with his probation and had maintained stable employment, and that, during his recent incarceration on his new charges, he had completed certain programs.

[9] Davis’ sanction is not an abuse of discretion. He has an extensive criminal history that commenced in 1989 and consists of convictions in both California and Indiana, and he has previously violated his probation. In this case, Davis has repeatedly violated his probation, and his violations have escalated in both the quantity and gravity of offenses. For his two prior violations the trial court afforded Davis leniency by simply returning him to probation, even when the violation included numerous new felony charges. With this final violation, the court noted its serious nature that justified a more severe sanction.

[10] Given Davis's numerous and escalating violations and his apparent unwillingness or inability to alter his behavior, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sanction of four years of Davis’ previously suspended sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed.

Crone, Senior Judge.

Foley, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.