Dennis Hoffman, Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Dennis Hoffman claims that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve seven years of his previously suspended sentence following his violation of the terms of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In December 2017, Hoffman pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to attempted possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine as a level 4 felony. In January 2018, the trial court sentenced him to eleven years with ten years and 204 days suspended to probation. In June 2021, the State filed a petition for probation violation hearing alleging that Hoffman tested positive for methamphetamine. In September 2021, the court issued an order that he serve 180 days of his suspended sentence.

[3] In May 2025, the State filed a petition for probation violation hearing alleging that Hoffman violated the terms of his probation by committing the new criminal offense of possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony in Dearborn County. In September 2025, the court held a hearing at which Hoffman admitted to violating the terms of his probation as alleged.

[4] On October 23, 2025, the court held a dispositional hearing. Hoffman indicated that he was sixty-three years old, that he worked for a tree service and his employer had a job for him if he were released, and that he was in the Army for six years and was honorably discharged. When asked, “[y]ou were in Dearborn County jail for [ ] a crime o[f] possession” and “you were convicted of that,” Hoffman replied affirmatively. Transcript Volume II at 20. When asked to “briefly explain[ ] to the Court that [ ] situation,” Hoffman testified:

I like got a ride home with these people․ Well, [ ] I had left my phone up there and they gave me a ride up there to get it. And they was coming back doing Instacart. They asked me if they, I care if they did it, you know, before they took me home. I said, that's fine, you know, I didn't know that none of ‘em had license or drugs on them. I said, that's fine. I thought they was just doing their Instacart thing. So, I said, yeah, go ahead. And then they turned down the one-way street and, it just, cartwheeled after that, you know, just they found out he had no license, so they pulled him out and they was checking everybody and just things flying around. You know, all people, all nervous and stuff. I just sit there. The next thing you know they're pulling me out'ta the car.

Id. at 20-21. When asked, “the officers found Meth in the vehicle,” Hoffman replied affirmatively, and when asked, “[w]here did they find it,” he answered, “[o]n the floor, in the back, somebody slung it back there, slung it up there, I don't know where it came from.” Id. at 21. He indicated that he “ultimately ․ pled guilty in the possession in that.” Id. He testified, “I just felt trapped, you know, kind of, I had no way of really fighting it. So that's – I just felt like I was trapped.” Id. at 21-22. Hoffman's counsel requested that the court order Hoffman to serve two years of his suspended sentence and place him on home detention. On cross-examination, Hoffman indicated that he was arrested in March 2025 for possession of methamphetamine and that he pled guilty in that case. When asked, “you were pulled from the back passenger seat, correct,” he replied affirmatively, and when asked, “[a]nd out from your seat, fell a baggie of methamphetamine,” he testified, “[y]eah, that's what he said. I never had no clue, but that's what he said.” Id. at 28. The prosecutor recommended that the court revoke eight to nine years of Hoffman's suspended sentence.

[5] The trial court found that Hoffman was “not a good candidate at this point for probation.” Id. at 43. It stated, “your testimony basically would be ․ I [ ] was just in a Instacart car and you know, meth is flying about and I didn't do anything,” “I think you testified you had no clue and quote, ‘you were trapped,’ ” and “[y]our excuses are not [ ] believable.” Id. at 45. The court noted that it “does consider you having no previous criminal history,” “your service,” and “that you have a period of time in which you've [ ] been [ ] a good probationer.” Id. The court ordered Hoffman to serve seven years of his previously suspended sentence and stated, “I think that is the most appropriate under the circumstances in your history, your violations, [and] your character.” Id. at 46.

Discussion

[6] Hoffman argues the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve seven years of his suspended sentence. He asserts that he is a senior citizen, a military veteran, and passed all drug screens. He argues, “[l]ike other substance addicted individuals, [he] previously suffered a relapse” and, “[s]ubsequently, [he] had the unfortunate luck of being in a vehicle with others whom possessed methamphetamine and was charged with constructive possession of methamphetamine found in a vehicle.” Appellant's Brief at 11. Hoffman states that he “recognized his violation warranted the revocation of two (2) years of his sentence” but argues that “the nature of [his] violation did not warrant the revocation of the majority of his suspended term.” Id. He “seeks reversal and a remand with an order to revoke two (2) years of his sentence and place him back on community supervision.” Id.

[7] Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

[8] We review trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). The Indiana Supreme Court has explained that, “[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed” and that, “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. When reviewing an appeal from the revocation of probation, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Vernon v. State, 903 N.E.2d 533, 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[9] The record reveals that, in 2018, the court sentenced Hoffman to eleven years with ten years and 204 days suspended to probation for attempted possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine as a level 4 felony. The court ordered, in September 2021, that he serve 180 days of his suspended sentence following a positive test result for methamphetamine. In 2025, Hoffman was charged with, and pled guilty to, the new criminal offense of possession of methamphetamine as a level 6 felony. The court indicated that it did not find Hoffman's explanation of the events surrounding his possession offense to be believable, that it considered his criminal history, military service, and conduct on probation, and that he was not an appropriate candidate for probation. In light of the record, including his prior violation, we cannot say the court abused its discretion in ordering Hoffman to serve seven years of his suspended sentence.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court.

[11] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.