Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1603-CR-515 | December 12, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Casey J. Lindeman

Lindeman Law, LLC

Huntingburg, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael D. Webb,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 12, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No. 

19A01-1603-CR-515

Appeal from the Dubois Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mark R. 

McConnell, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 

19C01-1408-F6-557

Mathias, Judge.

[1] The Dubois Circuit Court revoked Michael D. Webb’s probation and ordered 

Webb to serve the eighteen-month balance of his previously suspended 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1603-CR-515 | December 12, 2016 Page 2 of 5

sentence. Webb appeals and claims that the trial court abused its discretion in 

ordering him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence. 

[2] We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 7, 2014, Webb peeped into the window of a woman’s bedroom. The 

woman saw Webb and knocked on the window. Webb fled but was quickly 

apprehended and charged with Level 6 felony voyeurism. Webb pleaded guilty 

and was sentenced to twenty-seven months of incarceration, with eighteen 

months suspended to probation. One of the terms of his probation was not to 

commit any additional crimes. 

[4] On March 21, 2015, shortly after being released to probation, Webb was again 

charged with Level 6 felony voyeurism. On March 24, 2015, the State filed a 

petition to revoke Webb’s probation on grounds that he had committed another 

crime, i.e., voyeurism. At a hearing held on January 15, 2016, Webb admitted 

to violating the terms of his probation. At a dispositional hearing held on 

February 5, 2016, the trial court heard testimony from Webb’s probation officer

and Webb. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Webb’s 

probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended eighteen months 

of his sentence. Webb now appeals. 

Standard of Review

[5] Webb does not contest the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his 

probation, as he admitted to such. He instead argues that the trial court abused 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1603-CR-515 | December 12, 2016 Page 3 of 5

its discretion when it revoked his probation and ordered him to serve the 

remainder of his previously suspended eighteen-month sentence. 

[6] Our courts have long noted that probation is an alternative to incarceration and 

is granted in the sole discretion of the trial court. Davis v. State, 743 N.E.2d 793, 

794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. Accordingly, a defendant is not entitled 

to serve a sentence on probation; instead, probation is a matter of grace and a 

conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. 

[7] Probation revocation is a two-step process. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 488 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2006). First, the court must make a factual determination that a 

violation of probation has occurred. Id. Where, as here, a probationer admits to 

the violation, the court can proceed to the second step of the inquiry and 

determine whether the violation warrants revocation. Id. 

[8] Upon revocation of probation, a trial court may impose one 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 year beyond the original probationary period; or 

(3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time 

of initial sentencing. Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) 

(citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(l) – (3)). 

[9] We review a trial court’s sentencing decision following a probation violation for 

an abuse of discretion. Alford, 965 N.E.2d at 135 (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 

N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1603-CR-515 | December 12, 2016 Page 4 of 5

court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances before the court. Id.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Webb claims that several factors should have been considered by the trial court 

as weighing in favor of ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in a 

community corrections program. Specifically, Webb notes that he admitted to 

violating his probation, had recently begun to attend a sex offender program, 

was gainfully employed, and that he helped care for his elderly grandmother. 

[11] First, many of these factors were supported only by Webb’s testimony, which 

the trial court was under no obligation to credit. Second, Webb was required by 

the terms of his probation to attend the Sex Offender Monitoring and 

Management program. Accordingly, he is not entitled to special consideration 

for doing what was required by the terms of his probation. 

[12] Third, Webb’s argument minimizes his long history of repeated criminal 

activity. At the time of the dispositional hearing, Webb was thirty-six years old. 

Yet his criminal history already included fifteen felonies and ten misdemeanors. 

His prior convictions include three felony convictions for voyeurism, three 

felony convictions for failing to register as a sex offender, two misdemeanor 

convictions for public indecency, and one felony conviction each for sexual 

misconduct with a minor, intimidation, and resisting law enforcement. Perhaps 

most telling is that Webb had been on probation for voyeurism for less than
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A01-1603-CR-515 | December 12, 2016 Page 5 of 5

three months when he violated the terms of his probation by again committing 

the very same offense. 

[13] Under these facts and circumstances, the trial court was well within its 

discretion to give little credit to Webb’s claim that “something just hit” and that 

he had “started looking at things differently now.” Tr. p. 11. Although we 

sympathize with Webb’s elderly grandmother, Webb’s criminal behavior, and 

the resulting punishment, has unfortunate collateral consequences, the blame 

for which can only be laid at Webb’s feet. 

Conclusion

[14] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Webb’s probation 

and ordered him to serve the eighteen-month balance of his previously 

suspended sentence. 

[15] Affirmed. 

Robb, J., and Brown, J., concur.