Antoine Terrell Tinder, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Antoine Terrell Tinder appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2023, Tinder pled guilty to Level 3 felony possession of methamphetamine and Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court sentenced him to six years in the Department of Correction, with four years to serve and two years suspended to probation.

[3] In September 2025, the State petitioned to revoke Tinder's probation. The State alleged that Tinder (1) missed a meeting with his probation officer on September 10 and (2) committed Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury against C.T. on August 30, as charged under cause number 34D02-2509-F6-2258. In the new case, Tinder was actually charged with both Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury and Level 6 felony battery (non-domestic) resulting in moderate bodily injury, but both counts were based on a single incident involving C.T. In April 2026, with the probation-revocation matter still pending, Tinder pled guilty to the count of non-domestic battery, and the count of domestic battery was dismissed.

[4] A month later, a fact-finding hearing was held in the probation-revocation matter. Tinder didn't contest the allegation that he missed a probation meeting, but he denied the allegation that he committed Level 6 felony domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury. The State called C.T. to testify and asked her if Tinder battered her on August 30. C.T. answered, “I don't recall a lot from that day.” Tr. p. 14. However, she acknowledged that, on that day, she and Tinder were in a relationship and living together, they “ha[d] words,” police were called, and police spoke to her and took photos showing injuries on her body, including a black eye and a large bruise on her arm. Id. at 13-17; Exs. 1-4 (photos). She also testified that she told her mother that Tinder battered her. For his part, Tinder denied punching C.T.’s eye and claimed that her injuries came from a separate fight with “another girl,” but he acknowledged that he and C.T. “did get into a little scuffle” and that he hit C.T. “in the arm and back.” Tr. pp. 26-28.

[5] The trial court found that the State proved both probation violations and ordered Tinder to serve the remainder of his suspended time.

[6] Tinder now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Tinder contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove he committed Level 6 felony domestic battery and that the uncontested violation—missing a probation meeting—does not by itself warrant the imposition of all his suspended time. Because we disagree with Tinder on the first issue, we need not address the second issue.

[8] The State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). That is, the State must show only that the defendant more likely than not violated a condition of probation. See Fry v. State, 990 N.E.2d 429, 448 (Ind. 2013). When reviewing insufficiency claims in the probation setting, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge witness credibility, and we will affirm if substantial evidence of probative value supports the trial court's conclusion that the probationer committed the violation. Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014).

[9] To prove that Tinder committed Level 6 felony domestic battery as alleged here, the State had to prove—again, only by a preponderance of the evidence—that he knowingly or intentionally touched C.T. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, that the touching resulted in moderate bodily injury to C.T., and that C.T. was a family or household member. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1), (b)(3). Tinder doesn't dispute that he knowingly or intentionally touched C.T. or that C.T. was a family or household member. He argues that the State failed to prove he touched C.T. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that he injured her. We disagree.

[10] Tinder himself testified that he and C.T. “did get into a little scuffle” and that he hit C.T. “in the arm and back.” The State presented photos of C.T.’s injuries, including a black eye and a large bruise on her arm, and C.T. testified that police took the photos after she and Tinder “ha[d] words.” She also acknowledged that she told her mother that Tinder battered her. This evidence was more than sufficient to prove that Tinder touched C.T. in a rude, insolent, or angry manner and that he caused her injuries. To the extent Tinder relies on his own testimony that “another girl” caused the injuries, that is a request for us to judge witness credibility, which we will not do. See Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267. We therefore affirm the revocation of Tinder's probation.¹

[11] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Though we affirm, we note that the State made this proceeding unnecessarily complicated. After Tinder pled guilty to Level 6 felony battery in his new case, the State could have simply amended the revocation petition to reflect that crime rather than Level 6 felony domestic battery. If the State had done so, and if Tinder had still insisted on a contested fact-finding hearing, the State could have proven the probation violation simply by presenting evidence of the new conviction, with no need for testimony from C.T.

Vaidik, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and May, J., concur.