Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 1 of 6

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

Mark K. Leeman

Logansport, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Pausides Alayo,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 17, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

09A02-1712-CR-2800

Appeal from the Cass Superior 

Court

The Honorable Richard A. 

Maughmer, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

09D02-1404-FB-20

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 2 of 6

[1] Pausides Alayo appeals following the revocation of his probation. On appeal, 

Alayo argues that the State’s evidence is insufficient to support the revocation 

of his probation.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alayo pled guilty to Class D felony strangulation 

and the State agreed to dismiss four other charges. On June 2, 2014, the trial 

court sentenced Alayo to 910 days, with 776 days suspended to probation. In 

addition to the general terms of probation, Alayo was also required to enroll in 

and successfully complete a domestic violence program “at least thirty days 

prior to [his] calculated termination date,” pay a number of costs and fees, and 

obtain a mental health evaluation and follow any treatment recommendation. 

Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 55. In October 2015, the State filed a petition 

alleging Alayo violated his probation after he submitted to a drug screen that 

was positive for methamphetamine. On November 24, 2015, Alayo admitted 

to violating his probation and the court ordered that he serve 120 days of his 

suspended sentence. 

[4] On June 27, 2016, the State filed a second petition alleging Alayo violated his 

probation by (1) failing to complete a domestic violence program, (2) failing to 

pay probation user fees, (3) failing to pay for drug screens, (4) failing to pay 

court costs, (5) failing to pay a public defender fee, and (6) failing to pay the 

drug and alcohol program fee. At an initial hearing on July 15, 2016, the court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 3 of 6

emphasized to Alayo that he needed “to start paying on this stuff.” Transcript at 

6. 

[5] At a hearing on January 3, 2017, the State informed the court that Alayo had 

“completed that domestic violence program” and that he had been paying, but 

“he still owes fees.” Id. at 9. The State requested that Alayo’s probation be 

“terminated unsuccessfully and for a judgment to be entered” for unpaid fees. 

Id. When questioned by the court about his ability to pay the fines and costs, 

Alayo stated that he worked painting houses and fixing pipes. Alayo indicated 

to the court that he could pay his costs and fees in “five months.” Id. at 11. 

The court informed Alayo of the amount he owed and continued the matter to 

June 27, 2017.

[6] On August 8, 2017, the State filed a third probation violation, alleging that 

Alayo violated his probation by committing the offense of battery resulting in 

bodily injury. The court held a fact-finding hearing on the alleged probation 

violations on November 6, 2017. During the hearing, Terry Haney1 with the 

Cass County Probation Department testified that the probation fees had been 

retired, but there was no confirmation in the file that Alayo had completed the 

domestic violence program or whether he had paid the fees associated with the 

drug screens. The court took judicial notice of its own records indicating that 

Alayo had not paid court costs or the public defender fee. With regard to the 

 

1 Haney was not the probation officer who had directly worked with Alayo.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 4 of 6

commission of a new criminal offense, Haney testified that Alayo pled guilty in 

the Knox City Court to misdemeanor battery resulting in bodily injury and was 

sentenced. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court found that Alayo had 

violated his probation by (1) failing to complete the domestic violence program; 

(2) failing to pay court costs; (3) failing to pay public defender fees; (4) failing to 

pay the drug and alcohol program fee; and (5) committing a new criminal 

offense. The court ordered that Alayo serve 540 days of his suspended sentence 

in the Department of Correction, terminated probation, and entered a judgment 

against him for $468. Alayo now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as 

necessary. 

Discussion & Decision

[7] Alayo argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the 

revocation of his probation. A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature, 

and the alleged violation must be proven by the State by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Mateyko v. State, 901 N.E.2d 554, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. 

denied. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence to support a trial 

court’s decision to revoke probation, we consider only the evidence most 

favorable to the judgment, and we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the 

credibility of witnesses. Id. Revocation is appropriate if there is substantial 

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

probationer has violated the terms of probation. Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 

907, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). It is well settled that the violation of a single 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 5 of 6

condition of probation is sufficient to support revocation. Gosha v. State, 873 

N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 

[8] Alayo argues, and the State concedes, that failure to pay a public defender fee 

cannot, as a matter of law, be grounds for the revocation of probation. See Ind. 

Code § 35-38-2-3(n). We further note that while Haney testified at the 

November 6, 2017 hearing that there was nothing in Alayo’s file indicating he 

had completed the domestic violence program, the State had informed the court 

at the January 3, 2017 hearing, based on information received from Alayo’s 

probation officer, that he had completed such. Despite the court’s erroneous 

reliance on these two findings as a basis for revocation of Alayo’s probation, the 

court’s revocation of probation can still be upheld.

[9] With regard to Alayo’s failure to pay fines and costs (including fees) required as 

a condition of probation, such is a proper basis for revocation of probation if it 

is shown that the person recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally failed to pay 

and so long as it is not the sole basis for revocation. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(g), (m). 

The State established that Alayo had been informed of his obligation to pay 

fines and costs and the trial court even continued the matter of probation 

revocation for over five months to provide Alayo with an opportunity to pay 

such. Although Alayo paid his probation fees, he did not pay other fines and 

costs of which he had knowledge. We also note that the court did not base the 

revocation of Alayo’s probation solely on the fact that Alayo did not pay such, 

but also found that Alayo had committed a new criminal offense. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 09A02-1712-CR-2800 | May 17, 2018 Page 6 of 6

[10] To that end, we disagree with Alayo that there was insufficient evidence to 

support the court’s finding that he had committed another criminal offense. 

Haney testified that Alayo had pled guilty to battery resulting in bodily injury 

and was sentenced to a suspended term. Alayo did not object to Haney’s 

testimony in this regard. And, although the trial court sustained Alayo’s 

objection to the admission of an uncertified copy of the chronological case 

summary for the battery case, Alayo did not object when the court took judicial 

notice of such record. Alayo’s attorney also referenced the sentence handed 

down by the Knox City Court in suggesting to the court a proper sanction for 

the probation violation. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State 

presented sufficient evidence to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Alayo committed a new criminal offense while on probation.

[11] Even if the trial court erred in considering his failure to pay fines and costs, 

Alayo’s commission of a new criminal offense is sufficient by itself to support 

the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Indeed, the violent nature of the 

new offense is similar to the violent nature of the original offense for which 

Alayo was on probation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking 

Alayo’s probation and ordering that he serve 540 days of his previously 

suspended sentence.

[12] Judgment affirmed.

Najam, J. and Robb, J., concur.