Richard T. Key, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Richard Key violated his probation by failing to obtain employment and a high school equivalency credential. As a result, the trial court revoked Key's probation and executed 180 days of his one-year suspended sentence. Key now appeals and raises one issue for our review: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In February 2024, Key pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine as a Level 6 felony. In April 2024, the trial court sentenced Key to two years, with one year suspended to probation. The terms of Key's probation included the following:

17. You shall work faithfully at a suitable employment, notifying Court Services of the place of your employment, and not causing your employment to be terminated by your own actions․ If you are self-employed ․, you will provide verification to Court Services. If you are unemployed, you shall report and register with a staffing resource center ․ During any period of unemployment, you shall actively seek employment as directed by Court Services providing proof thereof on approved forms.

* * *

18. You shall complete the requirements to achieve a High School Equivalency (HSE) Credential by taking the appropriate test offered by the State of Indiana to achieve your HSE not less than 3 months before the end of probation․

Appellant's App. Vol. II at 54.

[4] On October 10, 2025, Key's probation ended. Five days later, the State filed a petition to revoke Key's probation, alleging, as relevant here, that as of October 10, Key had violated the terms of his probation by failing to “obtain suitable employment” and “achieve his HSE within three (3) months of the end of probation”. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 64.

[5] At the evidentiary hearing on this petition in March 2026, Key testified that he was unemployed from September 2024 to December 2025, he had started an LLC but did not have any income or customers, was looking for employment elsewhere, did not file the proper paperwork with the probation department regarding his employment and job search, and did not timely register for an HSE program or achieve an HSE Credential at least three months before his probation ended. The trial court determined Key violated his probation by “not obtaining or maintaining employment without just cause, and by not completing the required program, which was his high school equivalency degree or GED.” Tr. Vol. II at 49. The trial court thus revoked Key's probation, terminated it as unsuccessful, and sanctioned Key for his violations by executing 180 days of his suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Revoking Key's Probation

[6] Key contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation.¹ 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 probation revocation decision for an abuse of discretion, which “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 v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)), 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)). “A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” Smith, 963 N.E.2d at 1112 (citing Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995)). A trial court may revoke a person's probation for a single violation. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1); Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 833 (Ind. Ct. App.) (quoting Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)), reh'g denied, trans. denied, 220 N.E.3d 54 (Ind. 2023).

[7] Key argues the State did not present sufficient evidence to support his revocation. When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence at a probation revocation hearing, “we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment—without regard to weight or credibility—and will affirm if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.’ ” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270).

[8] The evidence most favorable to the revocation demonstrates that Key did not have a steady job for nearly all of his probation, and at the time of the March 2026 hearing, the LLC he claims he started had not resulted in any actual work or income. Even if merely creating an LLC was sufficient to be employed, the probation conditions also required Key to provide information about his self-employment, which he did not do. Moreover, as of the March 2026 hearing—more than five months after his probation ended—Key had only been in an HSE program for two to three months, but he was supposed to have achieved an HSE Credential at least three months before October 10, 2025. Key had also violated his probation in this cause once before: in January 2025, Key admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine, and the trial court sanctioned him by adding stricter drug-related conditions to his probation. This evidence sufficiently supports the trial court's decision to revoke Key's probation. Key's arguments to the contrary are merely requests for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267 (quoting Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270).

[9] Based on the foregoing, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Key's probation. We affirm that decision.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State argues that Key has forfeited his ability to bring this direct appeal challenging his probation revocation because he admitted to violating his probation. See Kirkland v. State, 176 N.E.3d 986, 988–89 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Huffman v. State, 822 N.E.2d 656, 658–59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)) (holding post-conviction relief petition is the appropriate avenue through which to challenge a probation violation admission). At the evidentiary hearing, the State did not believe Key had admitted on direct examination to violating his probation:[THE STATE:] Your attorney is telling us you're admitting to violating probation. Candidly, I'm not sure I heard anything where you admitted to violating anything․[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just to be clear, I said [I] would elicit testimony. If that, for example --THE COURT: He did say he's going to admit, though. And I agree, I didn't hear a single admission. I heard some poor answers, but not necessarily admissions․ So I'll let the State ask their questions.Tr. Vol. II at 39. Nor did the trial court accept any alleged admission by Key; it instead gave the parties the opportunity to present evidence and then revoked Key's probation based on that evidence. Under these circumstances, we will not require Key to challenge his probation revocation via post-conviction relief proceedings.

Felix, Judge.

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