Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

JILL M. ACKLIN GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Acklin Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana

Westfield, Indiana

J.T. WHITEHEAD

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

VELDON THOMPSON, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 48A04-1402-CR-60

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable Dennis D. Carroll, Judge

Cause No. 48D01-1103-FB-430

October 8, 2014

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge 
2

CASE SUMMARY

On August 17, 2011, Appellant-Defendant Veldon Thompson was convicted of Class 

B felony dealing in cocaine. He was subsequently sentenced to twelve years with six years 

suspended to probation. On May 9, 2013, Thompson began serving his six-year term of 

probation. On December 6, 2013, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“State”) filed a 

notice of probation violation in which it alleged that Thompson had violated the terms of his 

probation by (1) committing the new criminal offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, 

(2) failing to pay probation fees, and (3) failing to successfully complete recommendations 

for substance abuse treatment. Following a probation revocation hearing, the trial court 

found that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation by committing the new offense 

of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and by failing to complete substance abuse treatment. 

Upon finding that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked 

Thompson’s probation. On appeal, Thompson contends that the trial court abused its 

discretion in finding that he had violated the terms of his probation. Concluding otherwise, 

we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 17, 2011, Thompson was convicted of Class B felony dealing in cocaine. 

He was subsequently sentenced to twelve years with six years suspended to probation. On 

May 9, 2013, Thomson began serving his six-year term of probation. On or about December 

2, 2013, Thompson was arrested after he was found in possession of approximately nine 

grams of cocaine. Thompson was subsequently charged under Cause Number 48C06-1312-
3

FB-2301 with Class B felony dealing in cocaine. 

On December 6, 2013, the State filed a notice of probation violation in which the State 

alleged that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation by (1) committing the new 

criminal offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, (2) failing to pay probation fees, and 

(3) failing to successfully complete recommendations for substance abuse treatment. The 

trial court conducted a probation revocation hearing on January 13, 2014, at the conclusion of 

which it found that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation by committing the new 

offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and by failing to complete substance abuse 

treatment. Upon finding that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation, the trial 

court revoked Thompson’s probation and ordered him to serve his previously-suspended sixyear sentence. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Thompson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had 

violated the terms of his probation. 

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to 

which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court determines the 

conditions of probation and may revoke probation if the conditions are 

violated. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather 

than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how 

to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences 

were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to 

order probation to future defendants. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing 

decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion 

standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where 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) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
4

A probation revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding. 

Therefore, an alleged violation of probation only has to be proven by a 

preponderance of the evidence. When we review the determination that a 

probation violation has occurred, we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess 

witness credibility. Instead, we look at the evidence most favorable to the 

[trial] court’s judgment and determine whether there is substantial evidence of 

probative value supporting revocation. If so we will affirm. 

Whatley v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations and quotations 

omitted). 

Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 provides, in relevant part, as follows:

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

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the 

probationary period; 

****

(h) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before 

termination of the 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.

The violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Wilson v. 

State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). 

The trial court found that Thompson violated the terms of his probation by committing 

the new criminal offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine and failing to complete 

substance abuse treatment. In claiming that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that 

he violated the terms of his probation, Thompson does not challenge the trial court’s finding 
5

that he violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal act. Thompson 

challenges only the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation by failing

to successfully complete substance abuse treatment. Thompson argues that the trial court 

abused its discretion in finding that he violated the terms of his probation “[b]ecause one of 

the two grounds upon which his violation of probation was based was invalid.” Appellant’s 

Br. p. 7. We disagree.

Here, we need not consider the validity of the trial court’s finding regarding 

Thompson’s alleged failure to complete substance abuse treatment because the record 

supports a finding that Thompson violated the terms of his probation by committing the new 

criminal offense of Class B felony dealing in cocaine, which Thompson does not dispute. 

Again, the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. 

Wilson, 708 N.E.2d at 34. Accordingly, because the record sufficiently proves that 

Thompson did, in fact, violate the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal 

offense, we conclude that the trial did not abuse its discretion in this regard.1 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

BARNES, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

 

1

 Furthermore, we are unconvinced by Thompson’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in 

finding that he violated the terms of his probation because “it is possible that with only one violation of [his] 

probation, the trial court may have simply continued his probation with or without some modification. It is 

even possible that the trial court may have had some question as to whether that violation warranted revocation 

of probation.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10 (quotation omitted). Thompson does not argue on appeal that the trial 

court abused its discretion in imposing any particular sanction as a result of its finding that he violated the 

terms of his probation. Thompson merely argues that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that he had 

violated the terms of his probation. We are convinced that the trial court would have reached the same 

conclusion, i.e., that Thompson had violated the terms of his probation, if the trial court only considered 

Thompson’s act of committing a new criminal offense.