Kimberly Dea Ward, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Kimberly Dea Ward appeals the trial court's sanction following the revocation of her placement on probation. Ward presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve the balance of her previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 1, 2025, Ward pleaded guilty to criminal trespass, as a Level 6 felony, and theft, as a Level 6 felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Ward to concurrent terms of fifteen months for each count, all suspended to probation. The court also ordered Ward to pay $68.00 in restitution.

[3] On August 13, the State filed its first petition to revoke Ward's placement on probation and alleged that she had admitted to “taking Adderall” on August 10 and to “snorting methamphetamine” on August 6. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 41. The court granted that petition and sanctioned Ward to two days in the county jail.

[4] Then, on October 17, the State filed its second petition to revoke Ward's placement on probation, alleging that she had failed to appear for a urine screen, failed to give a valid urine screen, tested positive for alcohol on October 16, and failed to pay restitution and probation fees. The court ordered Ward to reside at an inpatient facility and undergo treatment.

[5] The State filed its third petition to revoke Ward's placement on probation on November 25. In that petition, the State alleged that Ward had failed to appear for additional urine screens, tested positive for methamphetamine while at the treatment facility, and failed to pay restitution and fees. The court remanded Ward into custody, but she was subsequently released to probation due to medical issues and returned to the treatment center. And, on December 29, the State filed its fourth petition to revoke her placement and asserted that Ward had again tested positive for methamphetamine while at the treatment facility.

[6] The trial court held a hearing on the State's petition on January 14, 2026. During that hearing, Ward admitted that she had tested positive for methamphetamine twice while at the treatment facility and that she had failed to pay restitution and probation fees. As such, the court found that she had violated the terms of her placement. The court then noted that Ward had “again tested positive” for illegal substances “even after being released on her own recognizance[.]” Tr. at 12. And the court noted that Ward had been “given opportunity after opportunity after opportunity[.]” Id. at 13. As a result, the court revoked Ward's placement on probation and ordered that she serve the entirety of her previously suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Ward appeals the trial court's order that she serve the balance of her previously suspended 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 is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances” before it. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).

[8] “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 her 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)).

[9] Ward argues that the court abused its discretion when it revoked the balance of her previously suspended sentence because she “presented substantial and uncontested mitigating evidence” to support a lesser sanction, including that she was sixty-five years old, had a “minimal criminal history,” and had serious health conditions. Appellant's Br. at 8.

[10] However, the court acted well within its discretion when it revoked Ward's placement on probation. Since her initial placement, Ward has violated the terms of her probation several times. Indeed, in the first instance, Ward ingested Adderall and methamphetamine, which resulted in the court sanctioning her to two days in the county jail. Then, despite an opportunity to address her substance abuse issues during a stay at a treatment facility, Ward ingested methamphetamine on two occasions while there. In addition, Ward failed to pay restitution and probation fees.

[11] Further, while a probationer who admits to violations must be given the opportunity to present mitigating evidence, which Ward did, 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.

[12] In other words, as the court noted, it had given Ward numerous opportunities to correct her behavior. But, instead of complying with the terms of placement, she continued to break the rules. And, most importantly, despite the court's attempt to get Ward help at a treatment facility, Ward continued to use drugs. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Ward to serve the balance of her previously suspended sentence. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[13] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.