Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2676 | May 13, 2020 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

R. Thomas Lowe

Lowe Law Office

New Albany, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gabrial Christor,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2676

Appeal from the Clark Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Steven M. Fleece, 

Judge Pro Tempore

Trial Court Cause No.

10C01-1808-F5-194

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2676 | May 13, 2020 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Gabrial Christor (“Christor”) appeals an order of the trial court that revoked his 

probation and ordered him to serve his previously-suspended sentence. He 

presents the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to 

consider less stringent consequences. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 7, 2019, Christor pled guilty to Carrying a Handgun without a

License, a Level 5 felony, and Possession of Paraphernalia, a Class C 

misdemeanor. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment, all suspended to 

probation. Christor reported to the Clark County Probation Department for an 

initial intake interview, but he did not appear for any probation meeting 

thereafter. On June 20, 2019, Christor was arrested and charged with six drugrelated offenses. On July 25, 2019, the State filed a petition to revoke Christor’s 

probation.

[3] On October 26, 2019, the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing. 

Christor’s assigned probation officer, Rupert Strawbridge (“Strawbridge”), 

testified that he had never met Christor because he did not “show up” for 

scheduled meetings. (Tr. Vol. II, pg. 13.) Strawbridge also testified that 

Christor had moved without providing notice to the probation department and 

mail had been returned as undeliverable. The State offered into evidence a 

probable cause affidavit signed by the officer who arrested Christor on June 20, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2676 | May 13, 2020 Page 3 of 5

2019. According to the affiant, Christor was being transported to jail when he 

admitted that he was holding heroin. Christor testified and attributed his lack 

of contact with the probation department to his having been hospitalized, 

bedridden, and homeless. He also testified that his girlfriend had contacted 

someone in the probation department on his behalf.

[4] The trial court found that Christor had violated the terms of his probation, 

revoked the probation, and ordered Christor to serve the previously suspended 

three-year sentence. Christor now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Probation may be revoked where: (1) the person violated a condition of the 

probation during the probationary period; and (2) the petition to revoke 

probation was filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of one 

year after termination of probation or forty-five days after the state receives 

notification. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). “[A] trial court’s sentencing 

decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion 

standard.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances before the trial court. Id.

[6] Christor concedes that sufficient evidence supports the revocation decision; he 

challenges only the consequence imposed, arguing:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2676 | May 13, 2020 Page 4 of 5

The abuse of discretion is that the trial court took no opportunity 

to inquire into the possibility of intermediate sanctions that could 

have provided increased supervision of Christor, such as 

Community Corrections or home incarceration. Neither did the 

trial court consider any type of treatment for Christor’s obvious 

drug problem. Instead, the trial court summarily revoked the 

entire suspended sentence to be executed.

Appellant’s Brief at 7-8.

[7] Where the trial court finds that a person has violated a condition of probation, 

the court may: (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 the execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the 

time of initial sentencing. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). Under this statute, the 

discretion afforded the trial court is extremely broad. There is no obligation 

imposed upon the trial court to consider a particular placement, such as 

community corrections, a drug treatment program, or home incarceration.

[8] The trial court found that Christor violated his probation by failing to report 

and committing new criminal conduct, and the trial court stated that the 

immediacy of Christor’s violations justified the maximum consequence. 

Christor was afforded leniency but violated multiple terms of his probation. He 

has demonstrated no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to order 

that he serve the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2676 | May 13, 2020 Page 5 of 5

[9] Affirmed.

Crone, J., and Altice, J., concur.