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 : MARK SMALL GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis , Indiana Attorney General of Indiana JAMES B. MARTIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana


## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DAWN M. BAILEY , ) ) Appellant

- Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 84A01

- 1308

- CR

- 346 ) STATE OF INDIANA , ) ) Appellee

- Plaintiff

. )

APPEAL FROM THE VIGO SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John T. Roach , Judge Cause No s . 84D01

- 0911

- FC

- 3456 and 84D01

- 0911

- FC

- 3532

J anuary 29, 2014 MEMORANDUM DECISION

– NOT FOR PUBLICATION BAKER, Judge2

Appellant

- defendant Dawn Bailey appeals the trial cour t’s revocation of her probation and contends that the trial court erred when it reinstated the remainder of her suspended sentence s . Mo re particularly, Bailey argues that, even though she pleaded guilty to violating several conditions of her probation, the trial court should not have reinstated the remaining four years of her sentence s . In light of Bailey’s complete failure to adhere to the requirements of her probation, we cannot say that the trial court erred in revoking her probation or in ordering her to serve the reminder of her originally

suspended sentences.
FACTS On September 15, 2011, Bailey, pursuant to a plea agreement, plea ded guilty to two counts of class C felony forgery and three counts of class D felony theft. Bailey received a sentence of four years on e ach of the forgery counts and two ye a r s on each of the theft counts. Each of the sentences were to run concurrently, for an aggregate sentence of four years. The trial court ordered that two years of Bailey’s sentence s be executed and two years be suspended and that she spend two years on formal probation. Also on September 15, 2011, in a second cause, Bailey pleaded guilty to class C felony forgery and was sentenced to four years, with two of those year s execute d , two suspended, and two years served on formal probation. When combined, the two
sentences amounted to four years executed, four years suspended, and four y ears on formal probation.3

Following Bailey’s release from the Department of Correction, a notice of probation violation was filed on April 24, 2013. The notice alleged that Bailey had not notified the probation office of her change of address, that her whereabouts were unknown, and that she had failed to report for a drug screen. On April 25, 2013, a warrant was issued for Bailey’s arre st. On May 3, 201 3 , Bailey once again failed to report to her probation officer. On July 9, 2013, Bailey ple a d ed guil ty to violating he r probation in both causes, and, on July 17, 2013, the trial court revoked Bailey’s probation. After examining Bailey’s file, the trial court determined that she should serve the remainder of her suspended sentences, a total of four year s. Bailey now appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION The decision to revoke probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court. Reyes v. State , 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for an abuse of discretion. Woods v. State , 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a def endant violated the terms of her probation, this Court will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at 639

- 40. Here, Bailey pleaded guilty to violating the terms of her probation. Appellant’s App. p. 19

- 20. Her probation was predicated on her ability to fulfill certain requirements,4

namely reporting to her probation officer and participating in drug sc reens. Id. at 39. In light of Bailey’s failure to comply with these requirements or even inform the probation office of her wher eabouts, the tria l court properly concluded that she was incapable of or refused to adhere to the conditions of her probation. Id. Additionally, while Bailey argues that the trial c ourt revoked her p robation without adequa te information, we do not find this argument convincing because the record demonstrates that the trial court had examined Bailey’s files several times before her hearing and Bailey had pleaded guilty to the alleged violations. Tr. p. 1

- 2; Appellant’s App. 19

- 20. Considering Bailey’s disregard of her probation requirements , the trial court was well within its discretion in ordering Bailey to serve the remainder of her sentence s . The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. NAJAM, J., and CRONE, J., concur.