Matthew B. Reed, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Matthew B. Reed appeals the sanction imposed after he violated probation. Reed contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it returned him to the Indiana Department of Corrections (DOC) to serve six years.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Over about a two-year period ending in March 2017, Reed repeatedly molested D.N. and N.N., the young daughters of his girlfriend with whom he lived and for whom he provided childcare. D.N. was eight years old and N.N. was five or six years old when the abuse began.

[4] In September 2017, the State charged Reed with two counts of child molesting: Count I, as a Level 1 felony, for submitting to other sexual conduct with D.N.; and Count II, as a Level 4 felony, for fondling or touching N.N. Reed entered into a negotiated plea agreement a year later, pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. The plea agreement provided for an aggregate sentence of twenty years served as follows: nine years in the DOC, three years on home detention through Marion County Community Corrections (MCCC), and eight years suspended to probation – a portion of which was sex offender probation.

[5] After his release from the DOC, Reed began serving home detention on August 21, 2023. MCCC and probation filed notices of violations in May and June 2024, and at a hearing on July 19, 2024, Reed admitted to violating a standard sex offender condition that he “not access the internet or any other on-line service through use of any electronic device at any location (including your place of employment) without prior approval from the Court and Community Corrections.” Appendix at 162. Specifically,

On 6/4/2024 [MCCC] staff conducted a routine Field Visit at [Reed's] listed residence. During the search [MCCC] staff found a tablet under [his] bed which [Reed] admitted he had in his possession since May 17th, 2024. Upon search of the tablet [MCCC] staff found internet use such as Facebook, chat rooms, gaming apps and dating websites.

Id. As a result of this violation, the trial court revoked Reed's probation and placement in MCCC. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of eleven years, with three years executed in the DOC and eight years suspended to probation.

[6] Reed was released to probation on July 1, 2025, and shortly thereafter began violating the terms of his probation. On October 24, 2025, the State filed a notice of probation violation based on a field visit conducted that day in which Reed was found to be in possession of unmonitored and unapproved smartphones. The allegations included:

The first unmonitored smartphone had internet history ranging from 10/22/2025 to current. The internet included Google and YouTube searches. The second unmonitored smartphone had internet history ranging from 8/21/2025 to 10/22/2025. There were several pornography searches, when Mr. Reed was asked about viewing the pornography he denied accessing pornography. Mr. Reed later in the appointment admitted that he has been accessing the internet and pornography on the unmonitored smartphone. Probation asks Mr. Reed at every appointment if he is accessing internet and accessing pornography and he has denied internet use and accessing pornography every time.

***

There were both internet and pornography searches on [the second] unmonitored smartphone. There were several searches on the pornography websites that included teen, teen porn, teenager woman, very young teen, young girl, young porn, petite teen porn, teens incest, porn rapes, little sister, youth nudist gallery, nudist teen, nasty little girls, slim young angel, and several other searches.

***

[Reed was] actively using emails that were not registered on the Indiana Sex Offender Registry.

Id. at 195-96. Based on the above circumstances, the State alleged four violations: 1) failing to communicate truthfully with probation; 2) failing to consent to the search of a personal computer; 3) accessing, viewing, or using internet websites and computer applications that depict obscene matter; and 4) using smartphones and emails that he had not registered with the Indiana Sex Offender Registry.

[7] At a hearing on November 14, 2025, Reed admitted all the allegations, and the parties presented arguments and evidence regarding the appropriate sanction for the violations. Reed testified that he has “an addiction to pornography that [he] did not know existed until this year.” Transcript at 6. He claimed that he was “trying to comply” and that this was his “first violation.” Id. at 6, 7. On cross-examination, Reed acknowledged having a text exchange with a coworker in September in which he stated: “Hey, gorgeous. I got WhatsApp so I can text you on Wifi on my smartphone that I hide from Probation, and I don't have to edit us.” Id. at 7-8.

[8] Reed's probation officer, Jordyn Buttz, testified that this was not Reed's first violation and that his previous revocation of probation and MCCC was “due to a hidden phone and unmonitored internet.” Id. at 9. Further, in closing, the State noted “the extensive list of obscene websites” that Reed had visited, some of which “appear[ed] to be borderline child pornography” and might result in new criminal charges.¹ Id. at 10.

[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked six years of Reed's previously suspended eight years. The court explained:

The Court ․ went back and reviewed its file beginning with the original sentence, the defendant's history of stents (sic) at the [DOC], as well as other release stents (sic) on either community corrections or probation. And the general tenor of Mr. Reed's conduct has been one of not following the rules ․ at its most basic level. And while the Court does appreciate Mr. Reed's testimony regarding his addiction and his willingness to address that, he is not the first defendant nor will he be the last that presents to the court a serious need of addiction of things, or substances, or behaviors in court, and acts, quite frankly, a different way out of court. With all those factors considered, Court believes that revocation of probation is appropriate․. The Court will recommend that the defendant seek treatment for his addictions in the [DOC].

Id. at 11-12.

[10] Reed now appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court.

Discussion & Decision

[11] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the trial court has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for an abuse of discretion and reversible only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. “If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of his probation at any time before the termination of the probationary period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, then the court may order execution of the sentence that had been suspended.” Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed on the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing).

[12] Reed contends that the sanction imposed by the trial court constituted an abuse of discretion. In this regard, he asserts that he took responsibility for his violations, acknowledged that he has an addiction to pornography, and “did not commit any new crimes or abscond from the jurisdiction[.]” Appellant's Brief at 7. Reed also suggests that he “made an effort to comply” and has a “relatively minor” criminal history. Id.

[13] We cannot agree with Reed that the facts and circumstances of this case warrant a lesser sanction than that imposed by the trial court. These were not Reed's first violations, and they were far from technical. Less than a year after his first release from the DOC to home detention, he violated probation in much the same way by secreting a device that he used to access the internet. That violation resulted in his return to the DOC in July 2024. When he was released from the DOC about a year later, he again violated probation. This time he had two smartphones that he secreted from probation, and on at least one of them, he had searched pornography websites using terms including “teen, teen porn, teenager woman, very young teen, young girl, young porn, petite teen porn, teens incest, porn rapes, little sister, youth nudist gallery, nudist teen, nasty little girls, slim young angel, and several other searches.” Appendix at 195. Reed admitted at the probation hearing that he accessed, viewed, or used internet websites that depict obscene material. And while new criminal charges had not been filed, the record establishes that authorities were in the process of conducting a forensic review of the seized smartphone(s).

[14] Reed's behavior and deceptive actions while on probation are particularly concerning because his compliance with the terms of his sex offender probation is essential to ensuring not just his rehabilitation but also the safety of the community. Further, the past leniency afforded Reed by the trial court did not stop him from repeating and escalating his behavior once he was released from the DOC again. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking six years of his previously suspended eight years and directing Reed to seek treatment for his addiction while in the DOC.

[15] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Based on the search terms and websites visited, at least one of Reed's smartphones had been seized by the Internet Crimes Against Children Taskforce for a forensic review. That review had yet to be completed at the time of the hearing, and no new charges had been filed.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.