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

ANGELA N. SANCHEZ

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JOSEPH A. HARRELL, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 52A02-1307-CR-576

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MIAMI SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Daniel C. Banina, Judge

Cause No. 52D02-1211-FD-268

December 11, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge 
2

Here, appellant-defendant Joseph Harrell appeals the revocation of his probation 

after violating the terms of his probation only nine days after having his sentence 

suspended to probation for previous offenses. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment 

of the trial court. 

FACTS

On November 7, 2012, the State charged Harrell with two counts of class D felony 

domestic battery and one count of class A misdemeanor interference with reporting a 

crime. On March 21, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, Harrell pleaded guilty to one 

count of class D felony domestic battery, and the trial court sentenced him to one and 

one-half years with all but time served suspended to probation. Nine days later, Harrell 

committed attempted theft, claiming that he had lost his job and decided to steal. 

On April 26, 2013, Harrell’s probation officer filed a petition to modify or revoke 

probation for committing the subsequent offense, and Harrell admitted to violating his 

probation at the May 9th initial hearing. On June 6, 2013, the trial court held a sanctions 

hearing and considered Harrell’s criminal history, including a domestic battery 

conviction, felony reckless endangerment, several driving offenses, and probation that 

had been terminated as unsuccessful as aggravating circumstances. The trial court 

revoked Harrell’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his suspended 

sentence in the Department of Correction. Harrell now appeals. 
3

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Harrell argues that the trial court erred in ordering his entire suspended sentence to 

be executed because “he accepted responsibility [and the new offense was] an isolated 

incident.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4. We review a trial court’s decision to revoke probation 

for an abuse of discretion, which 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). Where, as here, a probationer admits to the violation, the trial court can proceed 

directly to whether the violation warrants revocation. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 

640 (Ind. 2008). “A trial court may revoke a person’s probation upon evidence of the 

violation of any single term of probation.” Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2001). 

In the instant case, in addition to Harrell admitting to the violation, Harrell’s 

criminal involvement began at a young age and has escalated. Harrell has been convicted 

of domestic battery twice within four years. PSI p. 6-7. Moreover, Harrell violated his 

probation that was imposed on an earlier conviction, and, consequently, it was terminated 

unsuccessfully. Id. at 6. Perhaps most compelling, Harrell violated his probation in this 

case only nine days after being sentenced. Tr. p. 19. Under these facts and 

circumstances, we cannot say the trial court erred by revoking Harrell’s probation and 

ordering the balance of his suspended sentence to be executed in the Department of 

Correction. See Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 255, 262-63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (affirming 
4

imposition of balance of suspended sentence based on defendant’s criminal history and 

prior unsuccessful probation). 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.