Chad D. Moser, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Chad Moser admitted to violating his probation by failing to report contact with a law enforcement officer, failing multiple drug screens, and refusing to cooperate with recommendations of court services. As a result, the trial court revoked Moser's probation and executed his previously suspended sentence. Moser now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by executing his suspended sentence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In July 2025, Moser pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Moser to 730 days executed at the Indiana Department of Correction, with 728 days suspended to probation.

[4] As a part of his probation, Moser agreed to comply with the following terms: (1) obey all laws and report any contact with law enforcement to his probation officer within 24 hours; (2) maintain full-time employment and support any dependents; (3) not use, possess, or consume any alcohol or illegal substances; (4) submit to all drug and alcohol tests as instructed and pay associated fees; and (5) actively participate in and successfully complete any education or treatment programs recommended by Noble County Court Services. As the sentencing hearing concluded, the trial court stated,

What you need to know now, Mr. Moser, is you have 728 days of Department of Correction time hanging over your head. It will not happen if you comply with probation, ․ you'll get through without any further incarceration. If you have a violation, that's what you would face. Also, the State has offered you a further credit that if you have no violations for 1 year, you could ask me to release you early. So, obviously, ․ that also is a great incentive to come back and convince me that ․ would be warranted and deserved. So, [you have] every reason in the world to get through this, we hope you do. As your attorney said, you've never been on probation before, hopefully you do well ․

Tr. Vol. II at 12–13.

[5] On September 5, the State filed a petition to revoke Moser's probation, alleging Moser had violated his probation by (1) failing to report contact with a law enforcement officer within 24 hours, (2) failing to obtain employment, (3) failing to call into the random drug screen line on four occasions, (4) submitting two diluted drug screens, (5) testing positive for methamphetamine three times and alcohol twice, (6) failing to pay drug screening fees, and (7) failing to reside in a halfway house as required by his probation officer. The State also alleged that Moser was dishonest with his therapist about his progress with probation, which led to Moser receiving inadequate services.

[6] Moser denied that he was unemployed and that he submitted two diluted screens, but he admitted to the other violations as alleged. At the dispositional hearing, Moser stated, “Probation is not for [him].” Tr. Vol. II at 38. Based on Moser's criminal history and probation violations, the trial court fully executed Moser's 728-day suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Executing Moser's Suspended Sentence

[7] Moser contends that the trial court abused its discretion by executing his entire suspended sentence. As an “alternative[ ] to incarceration through the Department of Correction,” probation “is a ‘matter of grace,’ a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” Ewing v. State, 273 N.E.3d 1107, 1111 (Ind. 2026) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We review a trial court's sentencing decision on a probation violation for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). “An abuse of discretion occurs ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances,’ ” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188), or where the trial court “misinterpret[s] the law,” Ewing, 273 N.E.3d at 1110 (citing Mitchell v. 10th & The Bypass, LLC, 3 N.E.3d 967, 970 (Ind. 2014)). “We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551).

[8] Moser specifically argues that execution of his sentence was not reasonable because his probation violations “were not severe” and he continues to struggle with addiction. Appellant's Br. at 9. These arguments amount to requests for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551). The trial court was free to determine the severity of Moser's violations in light of his criminal history,¹ his statement that “[p]robation is not for [him],” Tr. Vol. II at 38, and his admission to the violations, at least one of which occurred within 13 days of Moser starting probation. We therefore cannot say the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Moser to serve his entire 728-day suspended sentence as a sanction for violating the terms of his probation. We affirm the trial court's decision.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Moser's criminal history includes a June 2025 conviction for possession of marijuana, a February 2018 conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and a May 2017 conviction for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

Felix, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Bradford, J., concur.