Christopher S. Thomas, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christopher Thomas appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, claiming that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the determination that a violation occurred. Thomas further contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the entire 580-day previously suspended sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 31, 2025, Thomas pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a Level 6 felony. The trial court accepted the plea and sentenced Thomas to 730 days of incarceration in the DOC, with 580 days suspended to supervised probation. Thomas signed the terms of his probation in early April 2025, which included refraining from drug and alcohol use, not engaging in further criminal activity, paying monthly installments toward $1,729 in fees, and reporting to the probation department as directed.

[4] On April 28, 2025, Thomas reported to his probation officer and did not make contact again until June 13, 2025, when his probation officer called him to set an appointment for June 17. At some point, a different Washington County court issued a writ for Thomas's failure to pay child support. Thomas failed to appear for the probation department meeting, and he made no scheduled fee payments. Thereafter, on June 20, 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Thomas's probation based on his failure to report to the probation department and his failure to make payments toward the fees.

[5] Indiana State Police Officer Devin Hopkins learned that Thomas had active warrants that included the child support writ and the warrant for the alleged probation violations. Officer Hopkins went to Maudlin Barrels—Thomas's place of employment—and located Thomas in his residence that was above the business. When Officer Hopkins arrested Thomas, he pulled a clear plastic bag from Thomas's pocket. Officer Hopkins suspected—from his experience and training as a police officer—that the bag contained methamphetamine. A field test confirmed that suspicion, and Thomas admitted to Officer Hopkins that the couple of “eight balls” of methamphetamine in the baggie were his, that he used the drug “daily,” and that he purchased a “quarter of an ounce” every week. Transcript Vol. II at 22.

[6] On July 17, 2025, the State charged Thomas with possession of methamphetamine, a Level 4 felony. The probation department learned of the new charge and filed an amended petition to revoke Thomas's probation on August 12, 2025, alleging that ground along with his failure to pay fees and the failure to report to his probation officer.

[7] On March 18, 2026, the trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing and found that Thomas violated his probation on all three grounds that the State alleged. The trial court revoked all 580 days of Thomas's previously-suspended sentence, and ordered him to serve that time in the DOC.

[8] Thomas now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[9] Thomas argues that the revocation order may not stand because the State failed to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Although Thomas admitted that he failed to appear for his appointment with his probation officer, Thomas maintains that there was no showing that he “willfully failed to pay probation fees,” or that he possessed methamphetamine. Appellant's Brief at 2, 14.

[10] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue in a probation revocation matter, we consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267. This court 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. Id. The State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation. Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied.

[11] In this case, Thomas concedes that he violated the terms of probation by failing to appear at the June 2025 appointment with his probation officer. That violation alone is enough to support the revocation of his probation. See id. The evidence also established that Thomas willfully failed to make any payments toward the probation fees that were ordered, despite his steady employment. Thomas's admission to Officer Hopkins that he purchased methamphetamine every week and used the drug on a daily basis made it clear that he chose to pursue his drug habit rather than paying court-ordered child support and probation fees. Finally, Thomas admitted to Officer Hopkins that the baggie seized from his pocket during his arrest contained two “eight balls” of methamphetamine, and field tests confirmed that the substance in the baggie was methamphetamine. Transcript Vol. II at 22. Thus, the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Thomas committed a criminal offense while on probation. In sum, the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that Thomas violated the conditions of his probation.

II. Sanction Imposed

[12] Thomas argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the entirety of his suspended sentence in the DOC. Thomas claims that a lesser sanction “consistent with due process and Indiana law” was warranted. Appellant's Brief at 28.

[13] Once a trial court determines that a violation has occurred, it then determines the sanction for the violation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). The trial court may impose any of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

[14] A trial court's sanction decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs only when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The appropriateness of a sanction depends upon the “severity of the defendant's probation violation.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013). The consideration and imposition of any alternative to incarceration are matters of grace left to the trial court's discretion. Comer v. State, 936 N.E.2d 1266, 1269 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

[15] Although only one violation is sufficient to support a revocation, multiple violations can warrant a more severe sanction, including execution of the full sentence. See id. Multiple violations can demonstrate that a defendant is unwilling to comply with the leniency of probation. Clemons v. State, 260 N.E.3d 1010, 1015 (Ind Ct. App. 2025).

[16] As discussed above, the evidence established that Thomas failed to appear for a probation appointment, knowingly or willingly failed to pay court-ordered fees, and continued to commit criminal offenses by using and purchasing methamphetamine while on probation. Those violations demonstrate that Thomas has a pattern of violating court orders, engaging in criminal activity, and disregarding conditions of probation. Given the number and nature of Thomas's probation violations, the trial court's decision to order execution of his entire previously suspended sentence was well within its discretion.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

Altice, Judge.

Vaidik, J. and Foley, J., concur.