Samantha Perkins, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Samantha Perkins admitted to violating multiple conditions of her probation, the trial court ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in the Department of Correction (DOC). Perkins appeals, arguing the trial court's choice of sanction was an abuse of discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 14, 2021, Perkins was pulled over for driving a spray-painted vehicle with a fictitious license plate. She could not produce a valid license or registration. When a K9 officer responded to the traffic stop, the K9 alerted to the presence of illegal drugs in the vehicle. A search of the vehicle revealed a lockbox between the passenger compartment and trunk. The lockbox contained various drug paraphernalia, empty plastic baggies, an electronic scale, and illegal drugs—including methamphetamine, marijuana, hydrocodone, and buprenorphine. Perkins was arrested, and while she was being booked at the Dearborn County Jail, a body scan revealed a key-shaped object lodged between her legs. When confronted, Perkins admitted she had a key in her underwear but claimed it opened her daughter's diary. In fact, the key opened the lockbox discovered during the search.

[3] As ultimately amended, the State charged Perkins with five felony offenses and three misdemeanors. In November 2021, Perkins agreed to plead guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine ¹ in exchange for dismissal of her other charges. Pursuant to her plea agreement, she was sentenced to six years with four and a half years suspended to probation.

[4] In April 2023, the probation department filed a notice alleging Perkins had violated her probation. As later amended, the notice alleged Perkins had tested positive once for nordiazepam, twice for temazepam, and three times for oxazepam. The notice further alleged she tested positive for marijuana on April 10, 2023. Perkins admitted to violating her probation as alleged, and the trial court approved the parties’ agreement regarding the sanction for the violations. Pursuant to the agreement, the court revoked 398 days of her suspended sentence and ordered her to serve 365 days on home detention.

[5] In September 2023, probation filed another notice of violations. The subsequently amended notice alleged Perkins had tested positive for marijuana, failed to report for a drug screen, made unauthorized stops while on home detention, and was charged with Class A misdemeanor operating while suspended. Additionally, she failed to take a medication she was prescribed or provide a copy of the prescription to community corrections as required. In October, community corrections alleged she violated the terms of her home detention for many of the same reasons. In May 2024, the trial court approved a negotiated plea agreement whereby Perkins admitted to violating her probation and home detention and the parties agreed she would participate in a specialized drug court program as a condition of continued probation.

[6] On July 17, 2025, probation filed a third notice of violations. It alleged Perkins had traveled to Indianapolis without permission in August 2024, damaged her tracking bracelet, submitted three diluted urine samples for screening between July and October 2024, was charged with another Class A misdemeanor operating while suspended in October 2024, failed to inform her case manager that she'd had contact with law enforcement, missed an individual therapy appointment, and tested positive for marijuana five times between December 2024 and June 2025. She was also terminated from the drug court program on July 17, 2025.

[7] At an initial hearing on July 24, the court told the parties it would not accept another negotiated agreement. Given Perkins’ history on probation, the court said it wanted to hear “all details on all ․ sides of the story” and “decide based on the merits ․” Transcript at 11, 12. The court held a fact-finding hearing on August 5 and Perkins admitted she had been terminated from the drug court program which violated her probation.

[8] At the dispositional hearing in September, Perkins testified, called two additional witnesses, and submitted seven letters from members of her church, including one from the pastor, to support her claim she had grown in character and faith. JoAnn Shockney testified that she was the resident director for RESET Ministries, a faith-based recovery program in Kentucky. She had not met Perkins, but Perkins had applied for the RESET program. Shockney said RESET was reserving a place in the program for Perkins and produced a letter stating the same. Sara Barkdoll testified that she met Perkins through church in early 2025, and at the time of the dispositional hearing, Barkdoll and her husband were serving as a kinship placement for Perkins’ fourteen-year-old daughter. Barkdoll said Perkins had a good relationship with her daughter and was loved by their church community. She further testified that Perkins told her she “ceased use of substances a few years ago.” Id. at 36. And while Barkdoll acknowledged Perkins’ recent positive screens for marijuana, she said she believed Perkins was telling the truth that she hadn't used because she “kn[ew] that there can be false positives ․” Id.

[9] Perkins, who was forty years old at the time of the dispositional hearing, testified she had been addicted to opiates and other hard drugs since she was fourteen years old. Her first “real treatment” occurred when she participated in an intensive treatment program after she received her second notice of probation violation. Id. at 42. She further expressed her desire to participate in the RESET program. On cross-examination, Perkins admitted she violated the terms of her suspended sentences in various ways, including her earlier violations. She also admitted she had committed a new crime and continued to test positive for marijuana while participating in drug court.

[10] Perkins’ probation officer also testified and recommended that her suspended sentence be revoked. The probation officer reasoned that Perkins had “been given multiple opportunities for rehabilitation” but had squandered those opportunities by committing an array of violations. Id. at 52.

[11] After argument, the trial court stated it was “particularly troubled by the evidence that was presented during [the] dispositional hearing.” Id. at 57. It noted that Perkins had “been given every chance that Dearborn County ha[d] to offer[,]” but she had not appreciated those opportunities. Id. Although she wanted to attend the RESET program now, the court observed that she could have pursued that program earlier in the proceedings. The court expressed significant concern that Perkins had “denied substance abuse” to the people from her church who wrote letters for her and came to support her “in direct contradiction to the evidence.” Id. at 58. It said it would disregard those character letters because Perkins had been dishonest with the people who had written them. The court reiterated Perkins’ many violations and said her behavior was “not repentant” and not that of “someone who has learned her lesson.” Id. at 59. For those reasons, the court revoked the balance of Perkins’ suspended sentence. After credit time was applied, Perkins was ordered to serve two years and 219 days in the DOC.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Perkins argues the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked her probation and ordered her to execute the remainder of her sentence in the DOC. Probation is a matter of grace—a conditional liberty rather than a right to which the defendant is entitled. Ewing v. State, 273 N.E.3d 1107, 1111 (Ind. 2026). Accordingly, revocation of probation is left to the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse a trial court's decision to revoke probation absent an abuse of that discretion. Brabson v. State, 242 N.E.3d 519, 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). 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).

[13] “Probation revocation is a two-step process.” Id. First, the trial court must determine whether a probation violation occurred. Id. Second, if a violation is found, the court must determine an appropriate sanction. Id. Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 provides that when a court finds a person violated the terms of his probation, it may, among other potential sanctions, “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended[.]” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). A single violation of probation can result in revocation. Rosenbourgh v. State, 268 N.E.3d 1255, 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (citing I.C. § 35-38-2-3(a)(1)). That said, “the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendant's probation violation[.]” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618.

[14] Perkins argues “the nature of [her] violations in the context of an admission d[id] not warrant the total revocation by the trial court.” Appellant's Brief at 15. She claims her admissions should have “been considered a proper mitigator, warranting a revocation of less than the sum of the remaining suspended time.” Id. at 14. While a probationer who admits to violations must be given the opportunity to present mitigating evidence, and Perkins did so, the statute governing probation revocation proceedings does not require trial courts “to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied; see also I.C. 35-38-2-3 (outlining procedures courts must follow to revoke probation, without referencing aggravating or mitigating circumstances). More to the point, a court may revoke a defendant's suspended sentence whether her violations were proven at a contested fact-finding hearing or admitted. See e.g., Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming probation revocation based on defendant's admitted violations), trans. denied; Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (same); Smith v. State, Case No. 25A-CR-1994, at *2-3 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2025) (mem.) (same). Indeed, before Perkins admitted to the allegations against her, the court advised her that an admitted violation would permit the court to “order the execution of [her] suspended sentence.” Tr. at 17.

[15] And to be sure, the evidence supports the trial court's decision to revoke the remainder of Perkins’ suspended sentence. Perkins continuously failed to comply with the terms of many alternative placements offered to her, including probation, home detention, and drug court. Among other violations, she engaged in many repeat violations, such as committing new crimes (operating while suspended), testing positive for marijuana, diluting urine samples, and traveling without permission. Although she was granted leniency by being sentenced to drug court after her second set of probation violations, she squandered that opportunity and was terminated from the program in July 2025. Under these circumstances, the trial court's choice of sanction was within its discretion. See Porter, 117 N.E.3d at 675 (affirming revocation of suspended sentence where the defendant “displayed an unwillingness to avail himself of rehabilitative efforts” and had “committed one or more new criminal offenses” and “violated probation in the past”).

[16] Finally, Perkins argues the trial court erred when it “completely disregarded any positive evidence presented and instead focused on her prior behavior.” Appellant's Br. at 15. But we agree with the State that under the circumstances “it was appropriate for the trial court to discount that evidence.” Appellee's Br. at 15. The court found Perkins’ persistent failure to follow the rules of her suspended sentences demonstrated a lack of repentance and was not the conduct of “someone who ha[d] learned her lesson.” Tr. at 59. To the court, Perkins had not changed her pattern of behavior because the evidence at the dispositional hearing showed she “denied [continued] substance abuse to [the church members who supported her] in direct contradiction to the evidence.” Id. at 58. Perkins’ request that we reweigh the evidence before the trial court is unavailing. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008) (When reviewing a probation revocation, “we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.”). Because the evidence showed Perkins continued to test positive for marijuana throughout 2025 and was terminated from the drug court program in July of that year, the court did not abuse its discretion by giving little credence to her character references.

Conclusion

[17] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Perkins’ probation and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in the DOC.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1(a)(2)(A).

DeBoer, Judge.

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