Robert T. Ward, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Robert T. Ward appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court for his violation of probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July 2024, the State charged Ward with Level 5 felony battery resulting in serious bodily injury and Level 6 felony battery resulting in moderate bodily injury. Ward and the State entered into a plea agreement under which Ward would plead guilty to the Level 6 felony, the State would dismiss the Level 5 felony, and Ward's sentence would be one year suspended to probation. In December 2024, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Ward accordingly, which amounted to 355 days suspended to probation after credit for time served.

[3] Four months later, in April 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Ward's probation after he tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and THC. The following month, the State amended the petition because Ward failed another drug test, this time testing positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and cocaine. Ward admitted to both allegations in July, and the parties agreed that Ward would serve four weekends in the Jasper County Jail and then be returned to probation.

[4] In September, the State again petitioned to revoke Ward's probation alleging that he committed Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon and Level 6 battery resulting in moderate bodily injury as charged in Cause No. 37D01-2509-F5-836. The parties initially reached an agreement on the alleged violation. But when the court asked Ward at the probation-revocation hearing whether he wished to accept it, he said no. Tr. p. 9. The court proceeded to a fact-finding hearing, found that Ward violated his probation, and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence on community corrections.

[5] Ward now appeals.¹

Discussion and Decision

[6] Ward contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to serve his 355-day suspended sentence on community corrections for violating his probation. Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in determining the appropriate sanction for probation violations, and we review only for an abuse of that discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).

[7] Ward claims that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence. We disagree. This is Ward's second probation violation in this case. He committed the first violation just four months after being sentenced. And five months after that, he committed an additional felony battery. See Sieg v. State, 271 N.E.3d 620, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (“We have repeatedly ruled that it is not an abuse of discretion to order execution of the entire suspended sentence when a defendant commits a new criminal offense while on probation.”).

[8] Ward argues that the trial court “did not fully take into account the nature of the offense and [his] character” when determining the sanction for his probation violation. Appellant's Br. p. 8. He claims that by initially entering into an agreement with the State, he showed a “willingness to admit to the allegations in the petition to revoke probation,” which “should have been considered as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate sanction.” Id. at 9. But this is the standard for an initial sentencing determination. A trial court is not required to balance aggravators and mitigators when determining sanctions for probation violations. See Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). And in any event, the court showed Ward leniency by allowing him to serve his previously suspended sentence on community corrections rather than incarcerated. The court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Ward to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence on community corrections.

[9] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   While this appeal was pending, Ward pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery with a deadly weapon in F5-836. Sentencing is scheduled for July 24.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.