Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 1 of 7

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Courtney Staton

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John L. Pratchard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1174

Appeal from the Dearborn 

Superior Court

The Honorable Jonathan N. 

Cleary, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15D01-1808-F6-299
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] John Pratchard appeals the revocation of his probation and termination from 

Southeastern Indiana Veterans Treatment Court (“Veterans Court”). We 

affirm. 

Issue

[2] Pratchard raises a single issue, whether the trial court abused its discretion

when it revoked his probation and ordered a portion of Pratchard’s previouslysuspended sentence to be served. 

Facts1

[3] On August 1, 2018, Officer Morgan Hedrick with the Lawrenceburg Police

Department was dispatched to State Road 48 near Ludlow Hill Park in 

response to a complaint about an unconscious driver in a vehicle. The 

unconscious driver was Pratchard, who was slumped over the steering wheel 

and appeared to have run off the road. Pratchard “smelled strongly of an

alcoholic beverage,” and slurred his speech upon being awoken by Officer 

1 We refer Appellant’s counsel to the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure: Rule 50(C). Our rule requires 

that “[a] table of contents shall be prepared for every Appendix.” Ind. App. R. 50(C). Necessarily, [t]he 

table of contents shall specifically identify each item contained in the Appendix, including the item's date.” Id. 

(emphasis added). It is not sufficient to simply list items with nondescript labels such as “Order” or 

“Motion” without including additional specifics.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 3 of 7

Hedrick. Appellant’s App. p. 20. A records check revealed that Pratchard, who 

claimed to be on his way to work, was an habitual traffic violator. 

[4] The State charged Pratchard with Count I, operating a vehicle after being an

habitual traffic offender, a Level 6 felony; Count II, operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated and endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor; Count III, 

operating a vehicle while intoxicated and having a prior conviction, a Level 6 

felony; and Count V, operating a vehicle while intoxicated and endangering a 

person, a Class A misdemeanor. The State also alleged that Pratchard was an

habitual vehicular substance offender (Count IV). 

[5] Pratchard entered into a plea agreement whereby he pleaded guilty to Count I, 

Count II, and Count IV, with the remaining Counts dismissed. The trial court 

accepted the plea agreement on February 19, 2019, and sentenced Pratchard to 

an aggregate term of seven years, all suspended to formal probation. 

Additionally, Pratchard agreed to participate in Veterans Court. The State 

agreed that—if Pratchard successfully graduated from the Veterans Court 

program and completed an additional one year of probation—the State would 

not thereafter object to a motion for sentence modification for time served, 

without any additional probation. 

[6] While participating in the Veterans Court program, Pratchard committed the 

following violations:

1. Failure to attend a case management meeting on April 1, 2019, a 

violation of paragraph 2 of the Veterans Court Participant Agreement. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 4 of 7

2. Failure to attend a group treatment session on April 25, 2019, a violation 

of paragraph 2 of the Veterans Court Participant Agreement. 

3. Operating a motor vehicle without a license on August 19, 2019, a 

violation of paragraph 3 of the Veterans Court Participant Agreement. 

4. Failure to attend three required self-help meetings during the week of 

October 14, 2019, a violation of paragraph 2 of the Veterans Court 

Participant Agreement. 

5. Submitting a diluted urine sample on February 7, 2020, a violation of 

paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Veterans Court Participant Agreement. 

6. Testing positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine on April 21, 

2020, a violation of paragraph 4 of the Veterans Court Participant 

Agreement. 

[7] After Pratchard’s sixth violation, Pratchard’s probation officer and case 

manager requested a Veterans Court termination hearing. On April 28, 2020, 

the State requested a probation violation hearing, and a bench warrant was 

issued for Pratchard’s arrest. After a hearing, the trial court found that 

Pratchard violated the terms of probation repeatedly and terminated Pratchard’s 

participation in Veterans Court. The trial court revoked 730 days of Pratchard’s 

previously-suspended seven-year sentence, with 550 days to be executed at the 

Dearborn County Jail, and the remaining 180 days to be served in community 

corrections on home detention. Pratchard now appeals. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 5 of 7

Analysis

[8] Pratchard argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated his 

participation with the Veterans Court, partially revoked Pratchard’s probation,

and ordered 730 days of Pratchard’s previously-suspended sentence to be 

executed. “For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to 

revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a 

hearing on a petition to revoke probation.” Flowers v. State, 101 N.E.3d 242, 

247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 663-64 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2014)). “‘Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, 

not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.’” Heaton v. State, 984 

N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 

2007)). “It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation 

conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Id. “In 

appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we 

review for abuse of discretion.” Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances,” 

id., “or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Id. (citing State v. Cozart, 

897 N.E.2d 478, 483 (Ind. 2008)). “We will consider all the evidence most 

favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that 

evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses.” Holmes v. State, 923 

N.E.2d 479, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (quoting Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 

691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 6 of 7

[9] “Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a 

factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually 

occurred.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citing Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 

640 (Ind. 2008)). “Second, if a violation is found, then the trial court must 

determine the appropriate sanctions for the violation.” Id. If the trial court 

“finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of 

the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the 

court may: . . . order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended 

at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

[10] Pratchard argues that he is employed; has not been disiciplined at work; has 

largely complied with the terms of his probation and the sanctions imposed for 

the various violations; has not been arrested for or charged with any crimes 

during the probationary period; and that most of his violations have innocuous 

explanations. 

[11] As the State correctly points out, Pratchard was participating in the Veterans

Court as a condition of probation in the instant case. Pratchard’s multiple 

violations of probationary terms, violations of the law by continuing to drive 

when prohibited from doing so, and continued engagement in substance abuse 

warrant the trial court’s termination of Pratchard’s participation in the Veterans 

Court. Having exercised its discretion in finding such a violation of the terms 

of probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking a portion of 

Pratchard’s previously-suspended sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1174 | November 13, 2020 Page 7 of 7

Conclusion

[12] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Pratchard’s probation

and ordering Pratchard to serve a portion of his previously-suspended sentence. 

We Affirm.

[13] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.