Anthony S. Tate, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Anthony S. Tate violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the entirety of his seven-year suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Tate now appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In August 2015, Tate pled guilty to Level 3 felony robbery. The court sentenced him to sixteen years, with nine years executed in the DOC and seven years suspended, with four of those years to be served on probation. On May 13, 2025, while on probation, Tate approached a woman, told her he needed help, and requested she call 9-1-1. When she pulled out her phone to do so, he “snatched [it] out of her hand and ․ took off running.” Tr. Vol. I p. 13. Officers traced the missing phone to a nearby house. When they arrived at the house, another woman came “running out the front door screaming” for help. Id. at 14. She informed officers that she briefly left her house and when she returned an unknown man, later identified as Tate, was in her home without her permission. Officers arrested Tate and upon searching his person found the stolen cell phone as well as methamphetamine.

[3] The State charged Tate with Level 6 felony residential entry, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, and Class A misdemeanor conversion. See 02D06-2505-F6-000721.¹ On May 15, 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke Tate's probation due to the new criminal charges. A revocation hearing was held in October 2025. The court found the State proved the new allegations by a preponderance of the evidence and revoked Tate's probation. The court proceeded immediately to disposition, ordering Tate to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence—seven years—in the DOC. Tate now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Tate challenges the trial court's decision to impose the seven-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.

[5] Tate does not dispute that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, he argues his “fully revoked sentence is inappropriate due to his quick acceptance of responsibility in 2015” and due to his mental health issues. Appellant's Br. p. 10. We disagree.

[6] In the dispositional determination of a probation revocation proceeding, consideration of a probationer's mental health is only required where: “(1) the State alleges the probationer has violated probation by committing a new crime and (2) the probationer's mental health issues affect the probationer's degree of culpability with regard to that new crime.” Gaddis v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1227, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). But here, there was little to no evidence presented as to any mental health issues, let alone that these issues affected Tate's culpability with regard to the new offenses. At the revocation hearing, no witness testified as to any mental-health issues, nor did Tate make any argument regarding his mental health. The only mention of Tate's mental health came from the probation officer's report, which stated, “the defendant has failed to comply with treatment for both his mental health and substance abuse issues.” App. Vol. II p. 32. Given the dearth of evidence regarding Tate's mental health, we cannot say the court erred in failing to consider it.

[7] Nor do we agree with Tate that a full execution of his suspended sentence is inappropriate in light of his agreement to plead guilty in the underlying case. Our Supreme Court has held “a defendant who pleads guilty deserves to have mitigating weight extended to the guilty plea in return.” Francis v. State, 817 N.E.2d 235, 238 (Ind. 2004). However, that mitigating weight is reflected in Tate's original sentence—of which almost half was suspended. He cites no authority suggesting that his guilty plea should continue to hold mitigating weight for a probation revocation, nor could we find any. Furthermore, leniency in sentencing is generally given in exchange for a guilty plea where the defendant has accepted responsibility for his crimes and prevented the State and potential victims from having to undergo a trial. See id. Tate contested his probation revocation, and thus this mitigator does not apply. We cannot say the court should have considered this factor here.

[8] The evidence at the hearing shows that while on probation Tate approached a woman, and when she attempted to help him, he took her phone and ran. He then entered another woman's home without permission, clearly causing her distress, and when he was arrested officers found methamphetamine on him. Given this, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in imposing its sentence.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State later amended the charging information to add a count of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felony and to allege Tate is a habitual offender. See 02D06-2505-F6-000721. A jury trial on all charges is currently set for August 2026.

Scheele, Judge.

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