SMITH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Aaron Hamilton Smith appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the determination a violation occurred. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In late 2023, pursuant to a plea agreement, Smith pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine. Consistent with the agreement terms, the trial court sentenced Smith to 545 days, with 499 suspended to reporting probation, and ordered him to complete a substance use evaluation and recommended treatment and to pay a probation user fee while on reporting probation. Upon successful completion of treatment, Smith's probation would become non-reporting, and his user fee obligation would cease. As part of the standard conditions of probation, the trial court ordered Smith to report to probation as directed; submit to drug screening; and participate in programs as directed by the Marion County Probation Department (“Probation”). In April 2024, Smith successfully sought waiver of his probation fees due to indigency.

[3] On February 10, 2025, the State filed its first notice of probation violation, alleging Smith failed to submit to seven drug screens on January 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, 2025, and had been referred to but not completed a substance use evaluation and treatment. The State twice amended the notice, adding allegations that Smith failed to submit to another drug screen on March 3, 2025, and did not report to probation as directed on March 19 and 26, 2025

[4] At a contested revocation hearing in January 2026, the State introduced records from Averhealth, the company that administers drug screens for Probation. According to Averhealth records, Smith failed to submit to eight drug screens on the 2025 dates alleged in the notice of probation violation. Probation court liaison Carrington Anderson testified Smith failed to report to his regular monthly probation appointment on March 19, 2025. When his assigned officer contacted him, Smith acknowledged the rescheduled date of March 26. Smith again failed to report.

[5] Anderson also testified Probation referred Smith for a substance use evaluation at “Sandra Eskenazi” in January 2024. Tr. Vol. 2 at 31. Smith did not complete an evaluation or treatment with that provider. After Smith claimed he completed an assessment with another provider, Aspire, Probation verified Smith completed an intake evaluation there on August 24, 2024. But Probation received no documentation showing Smith engaged in further treatment with Aspire.

[6] In his defense, Smith testified he went to Aspire for an assessment, but the provider did not recommend further treatment for him after the evaluation. He introduced Aspire records showing he completed a “Behavioral Health Individual Assessment” there on August 23, 2024, and that he authorized release of his Aspire records to Probation. Ex. Vol. 1 at 23. He argued that because he had completed the evaluation and the trial court had waived his probation fees, his obligation to report to probation ceased in 2024 under the terms of the plea agreement. Therefore, he did not violate his probation terms in 2025 by failing to report or drug test, as alleged, because he was no longer required to do so.

[7] The trial court found Smith's testimony was not credible and the State proved all the allegations in the amended notice of probation violation. As a sanction for his violations, the trial court ordered Smith to serve 240 days on home detention through community corrections.

Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination.

[8] Probation is a matter of grace, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999); I.C. § 35-38-2-3(f) (2015).

[9] When the sufficiency of the evidence to support probation revocation is at issue on appeal, we consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014). If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that the defendant violated any terms of probation, we will affirm the court's decision to revoke it. Id.

[10] Here, the State introduced the trial court's probation order containing the standard and special probation conditions applicable to and acknowledged by Smith. The State also submitted documents from Averhealth showing Smith did not show for drug screens on eight separate days. Probation court liaison Anderson testified Smith twice failed to report to scheduled probation meetings. Anderson also stated Probation referred Smith to Sandra Eskenazi for a substance use evaluation and treatment, but Smith failed to engage in services. This was substantial evidence of probative value from which a trial court could conclude the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, Smith violated the terms of his probation.

[11] On appeal, Smith acknowledges the State's evidence establishes he “stopped reporting to probation, missed several drug screens, and did not provide probation with documentation reflecting completed substance [use] treatment.” Appellant's Br. at 6. Nevertheless, Smith renews his argument that he fairly believed he no longer had to report to probation after finishing an intake evaluation at Aspire. And he contends the evidence presented at the hearing “was at least equally consistent with a good-faith misunderstanding regarding [his] probation status as with deliberate noncompliance,” and therefore the State failed to carry its burden. Id. at 7. But the trial court expressly found Smith's testimony not credible, and Smith's contention that his version of events is as likely as the State's is a request that we rebalance the evidentiary scales. As we neither reassess credibility nor reweigh evidence on appeal, Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267, Smith's argument must fail.

Conclusion

[12] Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination Smith violated the conditions of his probation.

[13] Affirmed.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Mathias, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.