Kent Jason Koehler, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Kent Koehler appeals the trial court's decision revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his previously suspended five-year sentence for Level 5 felony sexual misconduct with a minor. Because the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2021, the State charged Koehler with two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. In January 2023, Koehler was convicted of Level 5 sexual misconduct with a minor pursuant to a plea agreement. The court sentenced him to five years in the Indiana Department of Correction, giving him credit for three days served with good behavior and suspending the rest to probation. The conditions of Koehler's probation included, among other things, that he not commit any other criminal offenses, drink alcohol, or use or possess any controlled substances unless prescribed by a physician. He was also required to submit to alcohol and drug testing.

[3] On November 9, 2023, Koehler refused to take a drug test because he claimed he was unable to urinate. He submitted a urine sample a day later, which tested negative. At that time, the probation department chose not to file a notice of violation for Koehler's refusal to submit to a drug test.

[4] Nearly two years later, on September 11, 2025, one of Koehler's probation officers met with him to conduct a routine drug test. Koehler appeared nervous and was shaking during that meeting, and he said “he was concerned that alcohol would come up because he had drank Robitussin ․” Transcript at 23. The officer later explained that Koehler's statement was “an absolute indicator ․ that [he] may have been drinking alcohol because [the probation department] get[s] that excuse, the Robitussin/NyQuil excuse, on a weekly basis.” Id. Though Koehler tested negative for alcohol, his probation officer was nonetheless concerned Koehler had been drinking.

[5] Six days later, probation officers visited Koehler's home. When they arrived, they smelled the odor of marijuana “as soon as [they] got up to the door.” Id. at 9. The odor was strong “throughout the entire house,” so they searched the residence for marijuana. Id. at 16. Inside a bedroom “just to the right of the living room,” the officers found “loose marijuana laying on top of a desk” that “[w]as visible from the hallway” when the officers opened the bedroom door. Id. at 11. Also in that room (which belonged to Koehler's twenty-one-year-old son), the officers found a backpack full of several plastic bags of marijuana, a marijuana pipe, a pill bottle filled with marijuana, and several individually wrapped THC products. All in all, the officers seized “[a]pproximately 278.67 grams” of marijuana from Koehler's house. Id. at 16.

[6] While speaking with Koehler, the officers asked him if there was any alcohol in the home. Koehler said yes and brought them a bottle of wine. Then they asked Koehler if there was any alcohol in the garage refrigerator, and Koehler said no. But when the officers opened that refrigerator, they found several liquor bottles and cans of alcoholic iced tea. Koehler then admitted that right before the officers arrived, he had sat down to watch a movie and intended to drink as he did so. When they asked him what he was going to drink, Koehler retrieved a bottle of whiskey from a kitchen cabinet and said he “just had started drinking the minute [the officers] showed up for the home visit.” Id. at 9. The officers then looked in the cabinet and also found a bottle of vodka. Koehler agreed to sign a probation violation acknowledgment form indicating he drank alcohol on the day of the home visit.

[7] After the home visit, the probation department filed a Petition to Revoke Community Supervision alleging Koehler violated the terms of his probation by, among other things, (1) drinking alcohol and having several containers of alcohol in his house, (2) “[p]ossessing over a quarter pound of marijuana” and drug paraphernalia, and (3) failing to report for a drug screen on November 9, 2023. Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 219. At the fact-finding hearing, one of Koehler's probation officers testified to the facts described above. Koehler then testified and admitted he drank alcohol on the day of the home visit. He claimed, however, he had not consumed alcohol on any other occasion during his probation. The State's attorney then skeptically asked, “So ․ the one time you ever had a drink on probation ․ just so happened to be the day [your probation officers] came for a home visit?” Tr. at 28. Koehler answered, “Yes, sir.” Id.

[8] On cross-examination, Koehler's attorney asked him about the marijuana in his son's room. Koehler explained he had not noticed the odor of marijuana because he had previously contracted COVID-19, which damaged his ability to smell. He further claimed not to have seen or been aware of the marijuana because his son typically kept his bedroom door shut and locked with an electric padlock. Koehler's son then testified the marijuana was his and said he “[a]lways locked” his bedroom door. Id. at 42. To explain why the probation officers found the door unlocked during the home visit, the son explained the padlock's “batteries were dead that day.” Id.

[9] At the end of the hearing, the trial court ruled “the State ha[d] established ․ that it is more probably true than not true[ ] that Mr. Koehler was in possession of marijuana[,] ․ drank alcohol, and ․ failed a drug screen on November 9, 2023. Id. at 57. It then issued written findings and conclusions consistent with that ruling which reasoned, in part,

Koehler was originally charged with [two] counts of Child Molesting, both Level 4 Felonies. He was given a completely suspended sentence of a single count of Sexual Misconduct with a minor as a Level 5 felony. Thus, Koehler received a significant benefit in the resolution of his case.

Koehler squandered the leniency he negotiated for and was granted by this Court by his alcohol use, his failing to screen, and constructive possession of a large amount of marijuana in his home.

․

Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity of a suspended sentence, Koehler chose to violate the terms of his supervision and chose to engage in criminal behavior.

Probationers who commit criminal acts while under this Court's supervision demonstrate they are no longer appropriate for community supervision.

The Court now revokes Koehler's suspended sentence ․ and orders Koehler to execute said time at the Department of Correction.

Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 6-7, 9 (footnote omitted). Koehler now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Koehler contends “[t]he trial court abused its discretion when it revoked [his] entire suspended sentence ․” Appellant's Brief at 12. It is well-settled that “[p]robation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)), trans. denied. We review a trial court's decision to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. Ewing v. State, 273 N.E.3d 1107, 1110 (Ind. 2026). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before it. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).

[11] Though Koehler argues the evidence of his violations was “minimal,” he concedes the State presented enough evidence for the court to conclude “[h]e failed to appear one ․ time for a drug screen two years ago, he admitted to having one ․ drink of alcohol, and he provided a home for his adult son who chose to possess and consume marijuana.” Appellant's Br. at 12. And Koehler acknowledges that “[p]roof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[12] When a court finds a defendant violated the conditions of probation, it may, as it did here, “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended ․” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). Koehler nonetheless contends the sanction imposed by the court was too harsh given his supposedly “minor violations.” Appellant's Br. at 9. To be sure, “the selection of an appropriate sanction [depends on] the severity of the defendant's probation violation ․” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618. But we agree with the State that Koehler's attempt “to evade responsibility for his actions and minimize the seriousness of his violations” is not persuasive. Appellee's Br. at 11.

[13] Starting with Koehler's alcohol use, Koehler is right that he admitted to drinking alcohol only once. But he had several bottles of wine and liquor in his home, as well as numerous cans of alcoholic iced tea. And he was cagey with the probation officers about the presence of alcohol in the home. Initially, he only admitted to having a single bottle of wine, and he claimed there was no alcohol in his garage refrigerator. But the officers found alcohol in that refrigerator, and Koehler likewise failed to disclose the bottle of vodka that was in the same kitchen cabinet from which he had pulled a bottle of whiskey. Koehler's evasiveness suggests he knew his alcohol use was a serious probation violation. And the seriousness of that violation alone—even without considering the missed drug test or presence of marijuana in Koehler's home—was sufficient to revoke Koehler's probation. See Pugh v. State, 804 N.E.2d 202, 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (“Courts of this state have held on numerous occasions that the use of alcohol or drugs was sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of probation.”), summarily aff'd in relevant part by 819 N.E.2d 375, 375-76 (Ind. 2004).

[14] As for the marijuana in Koehler's home, he has presented no argument challenging the court's detailed findings and conclusion that he constructively possessed the marijuana and paraphernalia found in his son's bedroom.¹ We therefore accept those unchallenged findings and conclusion as true.² See McCallister v. State, 268 N.E.3d 1275, 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (“We take as true any findings and conclusions [the appellant] does not challenge on appeal.”), trans. denied. The possession of marijuana and other illegal drugs was expressly prohibited by the conditions of Koehler's probation. And as the trial court correctly concluded, even constructive (rather than actual) possession of marijuana subjects an individual to criminal penalties under Indiana law. See Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 174 (Ind. 2011) (“When the State cannot show actual possession, a conviction for possessing contraband may rest instead on proof of constructive possession.”).

[15] This Court has held that “[w]hen the alleged probation violation is the commission of a new crime, conviction of the new crime is not required” to revoke a defendant's probation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Instead, the State must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the accused has committed the offense.” Mosley v. State, 171 N.E.3d 1031, 1033 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). Given the unchallenged findings regarding Koehler's constructive possession of marijuana, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the State met its burden to demonstrate Koehler committed a new crime while on probation.

[16] Finally, we agree with Koehler that his missed drug screen in 2023 was, standing alone, a minor technical violation that might not have warranted the harsh sanction imposed by the trial court. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1179, 1184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (affirming a trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's probation but concluding it “abused its discretion when it ordered [the defendant] to serve the entire remaining term [of his sentence] as a result of ․ technical violations”). Indeed, at the time he skipped his drug screen, the State apparently did not find the stand-alone violation worthy of filing a petition to revoke. But in light of Koehler's two other serious, non-technical violations, we do not find the court abused its discretion in imposing a harsh sanction.

Conclusion

[17] For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Specifically, the trial court found, and Koehler does not challenge, the following:The Court ․ concludes that it is more probably true than not true that [Koehler] was in possession of marijuana while on probation.a. The Probation Officer, who has years of experience in narcotics investigation as a former police officer, noticed the odor of marijuana when he was outside the residence at the door.b. The odor was unmistakably strong inside throughout the home.c. It is true that Koehler's son testified the over 200 grams of marijuana located was his. But the son also testified he travelled to Michigan twice a year since the family moved in [two] years ago and purchased marijuana “legally” in an amount sufficient to last him a year.d. Crediting the son's testimony, this would be the [fourth] time the son brought a large quantity of marijuana into the home.e. The Court rejects Koehler's testimony that he was unaware of the marijuana in the residence or that he never had access to his son's room. On this record, the Court finds this highly implausible. At minimum, the Court finds it is more probably true than not true that Koehler was aware of the marijuana found in the residence.f. The large amount of marijuana located supports the Probation Officer's testimony that the odor was very strong and noticeable outside the residence standing at the front door. It further supports the Probation Officer's testimony that the odor was very strong inside the residence once Koehler answered the door and upon entry.g. The son's bedroom door was closed when Probation entered the home. But the door wa[ ]s unlocked despite the son's testimony he “always” locks his door and despite Koehler's testimony the son has “always” had a lock on his door and “always” keeps it locked.h. Regardless of whether Koehler physically had access to the marijuana, and regardless of the absence of any positive screens, Koehler endorsed the presence of a large amount of marijuana in his home multiple times over the course of [two] years by allowing it in the home and taking no action to either remove it, cause it to be removed, or otherwise prohibit his son from bringing it into and storing it at the home.i. Koehler aided ․ his son's possession and use of these large amounts of marijuana by providing his son a roof over his head and a bedroom to store the marijuana.Appellant's App. Vol. 3 at 4-5.

2.   Even if we were to construe Koehler's claim that there was “minimal evidence” of his violations as an attempt to challenge the court's findings, Appellant's Br. at 12, the assertions made in Koehler's brief about the evidence presented at the fact-finding hearing are merely an invitation for us to reweigh the evidence and second-guess the trial court's determination that Koehler's testimony was not credible. But we decline to do so, as “we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses when reviewing a probation revocation.” Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), reh'g denied, trans. denied.

DeBoer, Judge.

Brown, J., and Altice, J., concur.