NOBLE v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Eric M. Noble appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation as a sanction for his admitted probation violations. The only issue he raises is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 20, 2022, the State charged Noble with Level 5 felony stalking and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. On October 16, 2024, the parties entered into a plea agreement under which Noble agreed to plead guilty to Level 5 felony stalking and the State agreed to dismiss the misdemeanor charge. The plea agreement also called for a suspended sentence of three years (1,095 days), except for time served. On November 7, the State filed with the trial court a Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”), which included Noble's criminal history and showed a past termination of probation as “unsuccessful.” Supp. App. at 5.

[3] At a November 21 hearing, the trial court entered its judgment of conviction and sentencing order, and, pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, found Noble guilty of Level 5 felony stalking. Also pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Noble to three years, less time served, all suspended to probation, for a sentence of 956 days suspended to formal probation. Under the terms and conditions of his probation, Noble was ordered not to violate the law, not to possess or consume alcohol or any controlled substance(s), to take part in a treatment program with Centerstone, and to obtain a substance abuse evaluation.

[4] In April, May, June, and September of 2025, Noble submitted to random drug screenings and tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, and marijuana four different times. On September 4, Centerstone's progress report stated that Noble's progress with the treatment program was “[u]nsatisfactory” in the categories of motivation, progress, and attendance. App. at 96. The progress report showed that Noble had attended only one Life Skills/Recovery Coaching session. Centerstone's October 7 progress report again rated Noble “[u]nsatisfactory” in four categories: attitude, motivation, progress, and attendance. Id. at 97. The progress report indicated that Noble had been missing from program participation.

[5] On October 15, the State filed a petition to revoke Noble's probation. The State alleged three violations, to wit: the use of illegal drugs, not obtaining a substance use evaluation, and non-participation in the treatment program as ordered by the trial court. The trial court held a hearing on the petition to revoke on March 19, 2026, and Noble admitted to the alleged probation violations. The trial court revoked Noble's probation and suspended sentence, citing his failure of drug screens and non-compliance with court-ordered programs. The trial court ordered Noble to serve his previously suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Noble challenges the trial court's decision to sanction his admitted probation violations by revoking the probation and ordering him to serve his suspended sentence. “Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is ‘a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We review probation violation sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Id. (citations omitted). In making this determination, we do not reweigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. See, e.g., Puckett v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied.

[7] Under Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h), if a court finds that a person has violated probation, it may impose one or more of several possible sanctions, including “execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). And, while probationers must be given the opportunity to present mitigating factors, Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008), the trial court is not required to consider aggravating and mitigating factors when deciding whether to revoke probation. Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Moreover, a single violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to permit the trial court to revoke probation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). In determining whether the probation violation warrants revocation of probation or some lesser sanction, the trial court may consider such factors as the defendant's criminal history. See, e.g., Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (holding the defendant's criminal history supported the sanction for probation violation), trans. denied.

[8] Here, the trial court specifically noted that Noble has a history of reoffending after being given leniency in sentencing for past crimes, thus showing that such leniency “didn't deter [him] from committing further offenses.” Tr. at 17. The court further noted, “[t]he judicial system placed you on community corrections. There was a violation of community corrections. There's been short term periods of incarceration. All of that, sir, has not deterred you from -- from re-offending.” Id.; see also Supp. App. at 5 (PSI showing probation termination as “unsuccessful” in 2023 in a different criminal case). Therefore, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it revoked Noble's probation and ordered him to serve all of the suspended sentence. Noble's contentions to the contrary ¹ are simply requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. See, e.g., Puckett, 183 N.E.3d at 339.

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Noble's probation and ordered him to serve his previously suspended sentence.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Noble points to evidence that, while in jail, he engaged in a therapy program and obtained acceptance into a residential treatment facility.

Bailey, Judge.

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