Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Ruth Johnson

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Appellate Division

Indianapolis, Indiana

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Scott Klemme,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 10, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A04-1507-CR-869

Appeal from the 

Marion Superior Court

The Honorable 

Amy M. Jones, Judge 

The Honorable Shannon L. 

Logsdon, Commissioner

Trial Court Cause No.

49G08-1506-CM-20792

Kirsch, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 2 of 9

[1] Scott Klemme (“Klemme”) appeals the trial court’s decision to revoke his 

probation, raising the followed restated issue: whether the trial court abused its 

discretion when it found that Klemme violated his probation by failing to report 

to the probation department and by repeatedly entering a prohibited geographic 

zone.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On the evening of June 13, 2015, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer 

Andrew Girt was dispatched to a disturbance at a home on Kessler Lane East 

Drive in Marion County, Indiana. Officer Girt encountered two individuals at 

the residence, Klemme and his mother (“Mother”). Klemme told Officer Girt 

that he and his mother had had a “disagreement,” but Mother reported that 

Klemme had hit her. Appellant’s App. at 14. The State charged Klemme with 

one count of Class A misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and one 

count of Class B misdemeanor battery. 

[4] On June 17, 2015, Klemme pleaded guilty to the Class A misdemeanor battery 

charge, and, as part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed the Class B 

misdemeanor battery charge. That same day, immediately following the guilty 

plea hearing, the trial court conducted the sentencing hearing. Pursuant to the 

plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Klemme to 365 days in the Marion 

County Jail with credit for four days for time served, and it suspended the 

remaining 361 days, entered a No Contact order with Mother, and placed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 3 of 9

Klemme on probation. Klemme agreed to “All Standard Conditions and Fees 

of Probation,” which included reporting to the probation department. Id. at 23-

24. Also, as a condition of his probation, Klemme was required to wear a GPS 

monitoring device on his ankle (“the GPS device”), which would be monitored 

by Marion County Community Corrections (“MCCC”). Id. at 24-25. 

[5] After leaving the sentencing hearing on June 17, Klemme called his girlfriend to 

pick him up, and he went to her home. He did not report to the probation 

department. The next afternoon, June 18, Klemme went to the MCCC office at 

around 4:30 p.m. to receive his GPS device. Tr. at 15. MCCC explained to 

Klemme that the GPS device would alert Klemme, by vibrating, if he entered 

what had been designated as an exclusionary zone, which was an area that he 

was not allowed to enter. If he received the vibration, it was to serve as a 

warning to him, and he was instructed to turn around and head the other 

direction. 

[6] On the night of June 18 and into the early morning hours of June 19, MCCC 

received email alerts that Klemme entered the exclusionary zone at least three 

to four times. On June 19, 2015, MCCC filed a notice of community 

corrections violations, alleging that Klemme had entered the exclusionary zone, 

failed to comply with MCCC rules and regulations, and failed to maintain 

communication with MCCC. On June 23, the State filed a separate notice of 

probation violation, alleging that Klemme failed to report to probation intake 

and failed to comply with MCCC. On June 30, the trial court held a hearing on 

the charged probation violations. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 4 of 9

[7] At the hearing, William Beck (“Beck”), a MCCC employee and liaison to the 

courts, testified. He explained that Klemme was wearing a type of GPS device 

that was equipped to alert the defendant if he or she entered an exclusionary 

zone, also known as a “victim zone,” which is a one-mile radius around a 

specific point and is intended to protect the victim in the case. Id. at 6-7, 9. 

Generally, defendants are told that there are such restricted areas, but they are 

not advised of the precise location, in order to protect the victim. However, 

Beck noted that “[i]n this case [the victim] was his mother so of course he 

would have known where his mother resided.” Id. at 8. In addition to 

notifying the defendant in a case, the GPS device generates an email to the oncall MCCC officer to notify him or her that the defendant has entered the

prohibited exclusionary zone. Beck explained that “there is . . . a buffer zone” 

surrounding the exclusionary zone, which gives the defendant “a warning to let 

[him or her] know that you need to go another direction; you’re going towards 

the victim zone.” Id. at 7-8. Beck testified that Klemme entered the 

exclusionary zone at least three to four times and that he went “either in or 

right next to” Mother’s home. Id. at 11. The State also presented computergenerated maps, which reflected the GPS coordinates of Klemme’s various 

locations inside the prohibited area. 

[8] Klemme also testified at the hearing. He stated that on June 18, he went to 

MCCC, but “never did report” to probation. Id. at 19. As to the GPS device, 

Klemme testified to having gone to various locations on the night of June 18 

and early morning hours of June 19, looking for a place to spend the night,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 5 of 9

because his girlfriend would not let him stay with her. Klemme stated that 

during the night he went to the home of several friends who either were not 

awake, did not answer the door, or refused his request to stay the night. 

Klemme acknowledged that one of the friends lived “cattycorner,” from 

Mother. Id. at 20. Klemme stated that in the morning of June 19, he returned 

to his girlfriend’s home and learned that MCCC was looking for him, so he 

went to MCCC and turned himself in. Klemme conceded at the hearing that he 

had received the vibration alerts on his GPS device, but he believed that it was 

malfunctioning, given that he had walked through some puddles, and it was 

raining that night. 

[9] The State recalled Beck, who testified that MCCC’s GPS devices are 

waterproof and that they would not malfunction because someone stepped in a 

puddle of water. He said a person can shower in the device, but cannot 

submerge it “for a long period of time.” Id. at 23. He further observed that “if 

the equipment were to malfunction,” MCCC would not receive the defendant’s 

location and GPS coordinates. Id. at 22. In this case, Beck observed that 

Klemme’s report “shows him moving around in the area zones[,]” and thus, it

was not malfunctioning. Id. 

[10] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Klemme (1) “failed 

to report to the probation department for intake” and (2) entered the 

exclusionary zone multiple times on the night in question and thereby “failed to 

comply with the rules and regulations of [MCCC].” Id. at 26. The trial court 

also noted that Klemme did not contact MCCC until “a whole day later . . . 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 6 of 9

that next day when your girlfriend told you that you needed to call [MCCC]” 

and thus failed to maintain communication with MCCC. Id. at 27-28. The trial 

court also expressed concern that Klemme did not go to MCCC and obtain his 

GPS device until 4:30 p.m. on June 18, “when you should have been there first 

thing in the morning”; the trial court observed, “[Y]ou spent the whole entire 

day not being monitored.” Id. at 27. The trial court found Klemme “in 

violation of both [MCCC] and [his] probation placement,” and it ordered him 

to serve 180 days of his previously-suspended sentence. Id. at 30. Klemme now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Klemme asserts that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to revoke his 

probation “in light of [] Klemme’s difficult personal circumstances after being 

released from the jail[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 8. Klemme essentially claims that 

the evidence did not support the revocation. More specifically, his claim is that

the trial court did not consider certain “extenuating circumstances,” such as his 

difficulty in finding a place to stay the night, causing him to roam to multiple 

friends’ homes some of which were located in the exclusionary zone, and the 

fact that he stepped in puddles and the GPS device may have malfunctioned. 

Appellant’s Br. at 4, 8, 10.

[12] A probation revocation proceeding is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and, 

therefore, the alleged violation need be proved only by a preponderance of the 

evidence. T.W. v. State, 864 N.E.2d 361, 364 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 7 of 9

Violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Id. 

As with other sufficiency issues, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Id. We look only to the evidence that supports the 

judgment and any reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Id. If there is 

substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that 

the probationer committed any violation, revocation of probation is 

appropriate. Id. 

[13] Here, on June 19, 2015, MCCC filed a notice of MCCC violation, alleging that 

Klemme entered an exclusionary zone multiple times, failed to comply with the 

rules and regulations of MCCC, and failed to maintain communication with 

MCCC. On June 23, 2015, the State filed a separate notice of probation 

violation, which alleged that Klemme failed to report to the probation 

department for intake and failed to comply with MCCC. Appellant’s App. at 30-

31, 33. In accordance with Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3, a trial court has 

three options if a defendant violates probation. It may: (1) continue the 

defendant’s probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one 

year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or 

part of the suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h); Williams v. State, 883 

N.E.2d 192, 195 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). In revocation cases, the probationer is 

entitled to present mitigating evidence to demonstrate that the violation does 

not warrant revocation. Sparks v. State, 983 N.E.2d 221, 225 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 8 of 9

[14] Here, at the probation revocation hearing, Klemme conceded that he did not 

report to the probation department at any time. Tr. at 19. He offered no

argument or explanation to the trial court for his admitted failure to report, nor 

does he provide any justification on appeal. Klemme’s failure to report to 

probation was a violation of the conditions of his probation and provided 

sufficient grounds for the trial court to revoke his probation. T.W., 864 N.E.2d 

at 364 (violation of single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke 

probation). 

[15] Even excluding the failure-to-report violation, the State presented sufficient 

evidence that Klemme violated his probation by failing to comply with 

MCCC’s rules and regulations. Beck testified as to the MCCC maps which 

showed the exclusionary zone, the buffer zone, and pinpointed Klemme’s 

locations, according to the information generated by and sent from the GPS 

device. The maps reflected the locations where Klemme had been present and 

illustrated that, throughout the night, Klemme repeatedly passed the buffer 

zone and entered the restricted zone at least several times. Beck testified that 

the GPS device would have vibrated to warn Klemme and that Klemme had 

been instructed to turn the other direction upon receiving such a warning. The 

reports illustrated that Klemme did not do so, and Klemme admitted that he 

went to his friend’s home that is located essentially across the street from 

Mother’s home. 

[16] Klemme acknowledged that he repeatedly received the vibration warnings, but 

maintained that he believed the GPS device was malfunctioning since it was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1507-CR-869 | March 10, 2016 Page 9 of 9

raining, and he had stepped in puddles that night. Beck testified that the GPS 

device is waterproof and stepping in puddles would not affect it, unless the 

person submerged the device for an extended period of time. Beck further 

testified that Klemme’s GPS device was correctly operating, because it would 

not have sent the signals and locations if it was not operating properly. 

[17] The trial court rejected Klemme’s claims that the GPS device was not working 

properly and found that his explanations of where he went, as well as when and 

why, were not consistent or believable. Klemme’s arguments on appeal, 

claiming “extenuating circumstances,” are requests to reweigh the evidence. 

Appellant’s Br. at 4, 10. However, it is for the trial court to assess witness 

credibility, and we do not reweigh evidence on appeal. Whatley v. State, 847 

N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 

[18] The evidence is undisputed that Klemme did not report to probation, and the 

evidence most favorable to the probation court’s judgment is that Klemme 

repeatedly entered the exclusionary zone, despite receiving warnings to turn 

and leave the area. Thus, the State presented sufficient evidence to support the 

revocation, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked his 

probation and ordered Klemme to serve 180 days of his originally-suspended 

sentence. 

[19] Affirmed.

[20] Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.