Joshua Elroy Robinson, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Joshua E. Robinson appeals from the trial court's order revoking his probation and imposing the balance of his previously suspended sentence to be served in the Department of Correction (DOC) as a sanction for the violation. Robinson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the sanction because of the temporal gaps between the date of the criminal conduct supporting the revocation, the date the notice of probation revocation was filed, and the date of the evidentiary hearing. After review, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 23, 2008, Robinson was convicted of Class A felony possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle without ever receiving a license. On June 23, Robinson was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of thirty-five years with twenty-five years executed in the DOC and ten years suspended to probation. Robinson agreed to follow the standard conditions of probation.

[3] On May 16, 2016, Robinson filed a petition to modify his sentence. The court held a hearing on his petition on June 26, 2017, after which it issued an order modifying Robinson's sentence. The court agreed to stay the balance of Robinson's executed sentence and ordered him to participate in and successfully complete the Madison County Re-Entry Court Program.

[4] On May 10, 2019, the Madison County Problem Solving Courts filed a notice of termination request in Robinson's case. Robinson allegedly failed to comply with his re-entry court participation agreement in several ways. Those ways included: (1) failing to produce urine samples for drug screens; (2) missing drug screens; (3) missing case management appointments; (4) failing to inform his case manager that he had been served with a protection order; (5) purchasing a new car; (6) lying about his whereabouts; and (7) being deceptive about his attempts to contact his case manager. The court revoked Robinson's placement, lifted the stay, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously stayed executed sentence in the DOC.

[5] On January 25, 2021, Robinson was released to parole. On September 2, 2022, the Madison County Probation Department filed a notice of violation of probation. The allegations included that Robinson had violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense.¹ Robinson had been charged with Level 2 felony dealing in methamphetamine in cause number 48C06-2204-F2-1140 (F2-1140. A warrant was issued for his arrest. After Robinson's arrest, the probation department filed an amended notice of violation adding the allegation that he had been charged with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving in cause number 89D03-2508-F6-305 (F6-305).

[6] The court held an evidentiary hearing on February 13, 2026. Detective Lance Blossom testified that he and the Madison County Drug Task Force conducted three controlled buys from Robinson in 2018 during which Robinson delivered methamphetamine to a confidential informant. The State withdrew the allegation that Robinson had committed the additional criminal offenses charged in F6-305. The trial court determined that the State had presented sufficient evidence that Robinson had violated his probation by engaging in new criminal conduct as charged in F2-1140. After considering the arguments of the parties, the court ordered Robinson to serve ten years, the balance of his previously suspended sentence, in the DOC. Robinson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Probation “is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). A trial court has discretion to set the conditions of probation and “to revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). Revocation of probation is a two-step process. Id. The court must first determine whether a violation occurred. Id. An offender need only violate one condition of probation for the trial court to revoke his probation. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. Second, if the trial court finds the defendant violated the conditions of probation, the court may continue the probation, extend the term of probation, or “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (2015).

[8] A probation revocation proceeding is civil in nature, and therefore the State must prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763, 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). When the State alleges a probation violation based on a new offense, it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense. Jackson v. State, 6 N.E.3d 1040, 1042 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, “we use the same standard as in any other sufficiency question[,]” id. and consider only the evidence “most favorable to the judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses[.]” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We will affirm a probation revocation “[i]f there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that a defendant has violated any terms of probation[.]” Id. at 639-40.

[9] Here, Detective Lance Blossom testified that he and the Madison County Drug Task Force conducted three controlled buys from Robinson in 2018 during which Robinson delivered methamphetamine to a confidential informant. That evidence was uncontroverted at the hearing. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Robinson violated the terms and conditions of his probation by committing these new criminal offenses.

[10] Robinson challenges the sanction imposed by the court. As noted above, Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) offers the trial court the following options when it finds a defendant has violated the terms of his probation: (1) “[c]ontinue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions[,]” (2) “[e]xtend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period[,]” or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” We review a trial court's selection of a sanction for an abuse of discretion. Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[11] Robinson argues that the court's decision to impose the balance of his previously suspended sentence to be executed in the DOC was an abuse of discretion given the passage of time between his commission of the crimes in 2018, the date the notice of probation revocation was filed in 2022, and the date of the evidentiary hearing in early 2026. However, Robinson does not explain why the passage of time is significant or why it should factor in his favor. Indiana Code subsections 35-38-2-3(a)(1) and (2) (2015) provide,

(a) The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period; and

(2) the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period ubor before the earlier of the following:

(A) One (1) year after the termination of probation.

(B) Forty-five (45) days after the state receives notice of the violation.

Robinson has not established that the proceedings here violated those statutory timeframes.

[12] And he does not offer that he has lived a law-abiding life since 2018 or in the three years while the warrant for his arrest was pending. Instead, the evidence before the court reflected that when given less-restrictive placements, Robinson violated the terms and conditions of those placements repeatedly. The record also reflects the difficulties the probation department experienced in monitoring him. Moreover, it is well settled that 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). And “[t]he commission of new criminal offenses while on probation provides strong support for imposing the maximum sanction where the new offense mirrors the underlying conviction.” Vamos v. State, No. 26A-CR-573, 2026 WL 2105348, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. July 22, 2026). We conclude that Robinson has not demonstrated that the trial court abused its discretion by choosing to impose the sanction that it did.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Robinson violated the terms and conditions of his probation in light of the uncontroverted evidence supporting the violation. Additionally, the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing the balance of Robinson's previously suspended sentence as a sanction regardless of the extended, but proper, timeframe in which Robinson was prosecuted for a violation which mirrored the underlying conviction. Therefore, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State alleged and the trial court also found that Robinson had violated his probation by failing to report to probation as required. We need not address that allegation or claim because the issue can be resolved based on Robinson's commission of new criminal conduct during his probationary period.

Baker, Senior Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur.