James Edward Jenkins, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] James Jenkins pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony, and the trial court sentenced him to six years with four years suspended to probation. While Jenkins was on probation, the State filed two petitions to revoke, and Jenkins admitted the violations. The trial court ordered Jenkins to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). Jenkins appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Jenkins presents one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Jenkins to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence.

Facts

[3] In October 2021, an officer of the Purdue University Police Department detected a strong odor of marijuana emanating from a vehicle operated by Jenkins. During a search of the vehicle, the officer found two bags of marijuana and a handgun beneath the driver's seat. Jenkins had a prior conviction for robbery in a different state.¹ The State charged Jenkins with four counts of offenses, including Count III, unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony. On September 22, 2022, Jenkins pleaded guilty to Count III pursuant to a plea agreement, and the State dismissed the remaining counts.

[4] On November 22, 2022, the trial court sentenced Jenkins to six years, with two years executed in the DOC, the second year to be served through Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and the remaining four years suspended to probation. The trial court found as aggravating factors: (1) Jenkins’ criminal history; (2) prior petitions to revoke his probation; and (3) Jenkins had absconded from bail in another criminal matter. The trial court found as mitigating factors: (1) Jenkins pleaded guilty; (2) he had substance abuse issues; (3) he had a difficult childhood; (4) he cooperated with law enforcement; and (5) he had shown remorse. The trial court found that the aggravating and mitigating factors were balanced. Jenkins completed his community corrections placement on March 11, 2024, and began serving probation.

[5] On the evening of April 18, 2025, while Jenkins was on probation, Sergeant Sean Schaefer of the Indiana State Police was conducting a traffic stop on Interstate 65 (“I-65”) northbound in Tippecanoe County. Jenkins, who was driving a motorcycle, turned off his lights and accelerated away from Sergeant Schaefer, who did not follow him. Trooper Gage Walters, who was finishing a separate traffic stop, then observed Jenkins pass him at a speed he estimated to exceed one hundred miles per hour, with his headlight illuminated but no rear lights illuminated. Trooper Walters pursued Jenkins, driving in excess of one hundred ten miles per hour to catch up to him, and activated his emergency lights and siren. Jenkins continued northbound, weaving between lanes and other vehicles, while Trooper Walters reached speeds of one hundred thirty miles per hour. Trooper Walters terminated the pursuit roughly eight miles later.

[6] A short time later, Deputy Marshal Mike Powell of the Remington Police Department initiated a traffic stop of Jenkins and arrested him. A search of Jenkins’ person yielded a Glock .40 caliber handgun, a Ruger 9mm handgun, magazines, ammunition, a knife, a set of brass knuckles, and THC vapes. Jenkins was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, carrying a handgun without a license, resisting law enforcement, possession of marijuana, and reckless driving.² On April 21, 2025, the State filed the first petition to revoke Jenkins’ probation, alleging that Jenkins violated the condition that he maintain good and lawful behavior.

[7] On February 2, 2026, Jenkins tested positive for THC, and he later admitted that he used marijuana. Jenkins had also missed approximately five drug screens between the filing of the first petition to revoke and the February 2026 drug screen. On February 11, 2026, the State filed a second petition to revoke Jenkins’ probation, alleging that Jenkins violated the condition that he refrain from using controlled substances.

[8] The trial court held a hearing on the petitions on March 23, 2026. Jenkins admitted that he violated the good and lawful behavior condition of his probation by being arrested and testing positive for marijuana. The trial court found that Jenkins violated the terms of his probation as alleged in both petitions.

[9] The evidence at the hearing established that Jenkins was involved with the Mongols motorcycle gang, and Jenkins’ probation officer testified that Jenkins acknowledged to her that “he had had three guns, the police had confiscated two, and he got rid of the third gun and was trying to get out of the bike gang.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 84, 90. The probation officer recommended that Jenkins serve his suspended sentence in the DOC.

[10] Jenkins testified that he used marijuana the day before the drug screen because he was passing kidney stones and that he had tested negative since that time. Jenkins further testified that he was employed, he supports his young son, and he assists and resides with a woman who suffers from multiple sclerosis. Jenkins admitted that he received firearms from the motorcycle gang. Jenkins submitted letters of support from his employer, the mother of his child, and a friend.

[11] The trial court found that Jenkins was a serious violent felon who had led law enforcement on a high-speed chase, was found with firearms, and had failed a drug screen. The trial court found that community-based alternatives had been exhausted. Jenkins was ordered to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC, and his probation was terminated as unsuccessful. Jenkins now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Jenkins challenges the sanction imposed by the trial court as a result of his probation violations. We review a trial court's sanction for probation violations under the abuse of discretion standard. 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. “ ‘Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.’ ” Id. (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)).

[13] When a probation violation is alleged, the trial court engages in a two-step process. Id. “First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred.” Id. “Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.” Id. Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) governs such sanctions and provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the [probationary] period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more 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.

[14] “ ‘Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.’ ” Hammann v. State, 210 N.E.3d 823, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (citing Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied), trans. denied. “While it is correct that probation may be revoked on evidence of violation of a single condition, the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendant's probation violation, which will require a determination of whether the defendant committed a new criminal offense.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 618. “The requirement that a probationer obey federal, state, and local laws is automatically a condition of probation by operation of law.” Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(b).

[15] Here, Jenkins does not dispute that he violated the conditions of his probation. Jenkins argues, rather, that the trial court should have continued him on community corrections for one year rather than ordering him to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence. Jenkins contends that the trial court gave insufficient consideration to his acceptance of responsibility, his low-risk classification under the Indiana Risk Assessment System, his steady employment, his support of his young son, and his care for the woman living with him who had multiple sclerosis.

[16] We note, however, that Jenkins did not commit a minor probation violation. Jenkins admitted under oath that, while serving a suspended sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony, he possessed three firearms, that law enforcement confiscated two of those firearms upon his arrest, and that he disposed of the third. Jenkins was apprehended only after he fled from law enforcement at speeds exceeding one hundred miles per hour, weaving between lanes and other vehicles, while armed with two handguns and carrying five magazines and ammunition. Jenkins further admitted that he used marijuana while the first petition to revoke his probation was pending, and Jenkins’ probation officer testified that Jenkins failed to appear for approximately five drug screens.

[17] Jenkins, moreover, has a lengthy criminal history. Jenkins has prior felony convictions for robbery, theft of property, and fraudulent use of a credit card, and prior misdemeanor convictions for theft of property, theft of services, driving on an expired license, bail jumping, and possession of marijuana. These convictions span more than a decade and arise from several different states. Petitions to revoke Jenkins’ probation have been filed against him in prior causes, and one such petition was found true. Jenkins, thus, has been shown the grace of probation in the past.

[18] We commend Jenkins for obtaining employment and for the support that he provided to his son and the woman living with him who has multiple sclerosis. The trial court, however, heard this evidence and was not required to find that it outweighed the seriousness of Jenkins’ conduct. Jenkins’ arguments amount to requests that we reweigh the evidence and reach a conclusion other than that reached by the trial court, which we cannot do.

[19] Under these circumstances, the trial court was well within its discretion to order Jenkins to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. See DePalma v. State, 258 N.E.3d 1081, 1085-86 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering the defendant to serve his previously suspended sentence where the defendant tested positive for the same drugs that were in his system when he committed the underlying offense); see also Lampley v. State, 31 N.E.3d 1034, 1037-38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (holding that the defendant's admission that he smoked marijuana during his probationary period supported the revocation of his probation, and affirming the trial court's order that the defendant serve his sentence in the DOC). The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by revoking Jenkins’ probation and ordering him to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

Conclusion

[20] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Jenkins to serve three and one-half years of his previously suspended sentence in the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

[21] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Jenkins was convicted of robbery, a Class B felony, in Arkansas in 2010.

2.   The record does not indicate that the State filed charges arising from the April 18, 2025, incident. At a hearing on May 23, 2025, the State informed the trial court that the matter remained under review for purposes of potential charging and that the first petition to revoke alleged that Jenkins failed to maintain good and lawful behavior because he was arrested, not because he had been charged. At a hearing on December 12, 2025, the State informed the trial court that charges had not yet been filed in either Jasper County or White County.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bradford, J., and Felix, J., concur.