Brian Matthew Clark, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Brian Clark appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court when it revoked his probation. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2020, Clark pleaded guilty to neglect of a dependent, a Level 5 felony, in the cause underlying this appeal. He was sentenced to six years, with one year executed and five years suspended to probation.

[3] On May 30, 2025, the State filed a request for a probation violation hearing, alleging that Clark had failed drug screens and failed to reply to probation's attempt to contact him. The following month, the State amended its request, adding allegations that Clark had failed to stay current with his child support obligation and had been residing out of state.

[4] A warrant was issued for Clark's arrest, and once he was brought back to Indiana, he spent about seven months in jail before his disposition hearing. During that time, he attempted two different programs. He was first accepted into a chemical addiction program, but he was terminated within a month because he violated the rules. Clark also attempted the Matrix program but failed to complete that program as well.

[5] On February 10, 2026, Clark admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the court proceeded with a disposition hearing. Clark highlighted his recent completion of treatment at Hickory Treatment Center from January 12 to February 9, 2026 and presented letters from his therapist and behavioral technicians at the center. After hearing all the evidence, the court took the matter under advisement and subsequently ordered revocation of Clark's probation and imposed the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. Clark now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Clark argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence. “ ‘Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.’ ” Clemons v. State, 260 N.E.3d 1010, 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). Accordingly, we reverse a trial court's revocation of probation and its resulting sanction for an abuse of discretion, which occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Clemons, 260 N.E.3d at 1015.

[7] Upon finding a probation violation, the trial court may: (1) continue the probation with or without modifying the conditions; (2) extend the probationary period for up to one year; or (3) order all or part of a previously suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). To determine whether the sanction issued by the trial court is appropriate, we consider the severity of the violation. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013). Additional considerations include the defendant's criminal history, his past violations, and his unwillingness or inability to complete ordered programs. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed when conditions are violated. Id.

[8] The trial court's order contained detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, including a comprehensive list of Clark's extensive criminal history as well as a thorough recitation of his current violations and anger issues. Appellant's App. Confid. Vol. Three, pp. 110-20 (Order Revoking Probation). In concluding that imposition of Clark's entire suspended sentence was warranted, the court stated that it had carefully considered Clark's argument that he should be given another opportunity to complete probation based upon his recent progress at Hickory Treatment Center. Id. at 117. Yet, the court was not persuaded by this reasoning because Clark had had nearly five years on probation to demonstrate rehabilitation but had consistently failed to do so and this sudden change after a few weeks at the center is contradicted by his long history of failed treatment attempts and probation violations. Id. at 121-22.

[9] The court concluded that “execution of less than the entire suspended sentence would be insufficient given the totality of circumstances in this case” and that the sanction of Clark's whole suspended sentence was “warranted, appropriate, and necessary.” Id. at 124. The court listed the particular circumstances upon which it based its decision as:

a. The number and seriousness of the probation violations;

b. The Defendant's extensive criminal history;

c. The Defendant's nine prior probation violations in other cases;

d. The Defendant's failure to make meaningful progress toward rehabilitation;

e. The Defendant's continued anger and behavioral problems;

f. The Defendant's lack of respect for authority and court orders;

g. The need to protect the public, particularly children; and

h. The need to maintain the integrity and credibility of the probation system.

Id. The court additionally observed that Clark had demonstrated repeatedly and consistently that he is not amenable to probation supervision; that it had lost confidence in Clark's willingness or ability to comply with the conditions of probation; and that the aggravating factors substantially outweighed any mitigating factors. Id.

[10] To support his argument on appeal, Clark emphasizes his recent success at Hickory Treatment Center, his four years on probation before he relapsed with drugs, and his plans to seek employment, maintain his drug-free status, and manage his health concerns. Appellant's Br. pp. 11, 14, 15.

[11] First, Clark was released from the treatment center the day before the disposition hearing. While we commend him for completing a treatment program, there had not yet been time for him to encounter situations where his resolve was tested and he was compelled to implement his newly acquired strategies for remaining drug-free. Furthermore, he demonstrated to the court that his anger management and emotion regulation was still lacking when the court informed him that it was highly unlikely he would place him on home detention at his fiancée's home where two young children resided. Seeing Clark's reaction, the court stated, “you can't even sit here and listen to me lecture without losing your cool. That's probably a critical mistake, Mr. Clark.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 87.

[12] Second, Clark's argument implies that he had not violated the terms of his probation for four years; however, this is not the case. The evidence showed that one of the terms of Clark's probation was to keep his child support obligation current. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 73-74. Yet, Clark acknowledged that he made no support payments in 2022 or 2023, he made sporadic payments in 2024, and he made just a single payment in 2025. Id. at 74-75.

[13] Moreover, Clark makes much of his future plans to seek employment, even though he had had four years to obtain employment and had not done so. The trial court was particularly vexed about this new goal of Clark's because it appears that Clark had been untruthful to the court. The evidence disclosed that during a child support hearing, Clark had indicated to the court that his health prohibited him from working, specifically that he had difficulty standing. Id. at 94. However, the court reporter for Clark's child support hearing testified that after the support hearing she saw him at a children's baseball game where he was walking between the two dugouts and assisting with the players. Id. at 94-96. She confirmed that Clark had no trouble walking or standing. Id. at 95.

[14] Given Clark's extensive criminal history, the number and nature of the current violations, his failed attempts at rehabilitation while in jail awaiting disposition of these violations, his dishonesty concerning his ability to work, and his anger issues, the trial court's skepticism of his new-found sobriety, honesty, and anger management is understandable. Thus, we cannot say the court's decision is contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances in this case.

Conclusion

[15] We therefore conclude that the trial court's imposition of Clark's entire suspended sentence was not error.

[16] Affirmed.

Robb, Senior Judge.

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