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:

MATTHEW J. McGOVERN GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. WHITEHEAD

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

KASI BALLEW, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 22A01-1303-CR-141

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE FLOYD SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Maria D. Granger, Judge

Cause No. 22D03-1003-FB-622

November 27, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

CRONE, Judge
2

Case Summary

Kasi Ballew appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation. The sole issue 

presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked 

Ballew’s probation and ordered her to execute four years of her previously suspended 

sentence. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On March 12, 2010, the State charged Ballew with class B felony dealing in a 

schedule II controlled substance. Ballew pled guilty to that offense, and the trial court 

accepted her plea on August 10, 2010. The trial court subsequently imposed the advisory 

ten-year sentence with five years suspended to probation. Ballew appealed her sentence, and 

another panel of this Court affirmed that sentence by memorandum decision. See Ballew v. 

State, No. 22A04-1008-CR-555 (Ind. Ct. App. June 17, 2011).

On August 16, 2011, the trial court placed Ballew in a community transition program. 

Thereafter, on June 25, 2012, the State filed a notice of probation violation against Ballew 

followed by a petition to revoke probation. The State filed an amended petition to revoke 

probation on January 7, 2013, alleging the following ten probation violations: (1) failure to 

maintain good behavior; (2) violation of a state or federal law due to being charged with 

another crime in cause number 22D03-1206-FD-1261; (3) failure to undergo drug and 

alcohol counseling as ordered by the trial court; (4) failure to attend and/or reside in the 

halfway house; (5) failure to undergo counseling as ordered by probation; (6) failure to 

comply with day reporting; (7) use of alcohol and/or a controlled substance not prescribed by 
3

a physician; (8) failure to work faithfully or pursue a course of study; (9) associating with 

criminals; (10) failure to pay delinquent probationer fees. Appellant’s App. at 106.

Following an evidentiary hearing held on February 25, 2013, the trial court concluded 

that the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Ballew had violated several 

conditions of her probation. Specifically, the court concluded that Ballew used a controlled 

substance without a prescription based upon evidence that she failed drug screens and 

presented a diluted drug screen to her probation officer. The court also concluded that 

Ballew refused to reside at a halfway house as ordered by the court as a condition of her 

probation. Ballew failed to undergo drug and alcohol counseling as ordered by both the court 

and her probation officer, and she failed to report to the day reporting program, which was a 

condition of her pre-hearing release on the petition to revoke probation. Finally, Ballew was 

charged with another criminal offense while on probation after she and her boyfriend were 

arrested in a house where controlled substances, hypodermic needles, and other drug 

paraphernalia were present.

Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court concluded:

Defendant’s actions demonstrate that she will not submit to rehabilitation and 

accept responsibility for compliance with the supervision and terms of 

probation ordered by this Court. The defendant’s attitude and actions indicate 

an unwillingness to submit to the authority of this court and a willful failure to 

participate in her own rehabilitation, treatment and sobriety without 

commitment to a penal facility. The defendant’s actions further indicate her 

unwillingness to appreciate the consequences that result in not following the 

law. The defendant’s violations of probation are of a nature that requires the 

majority of the remainder of her probation be revoked. The objectives of 

justice and protection of the community will not be met if the defendant were 

to continue probation.
4

Id. at 113. Consequently, the trial court revoked Ballew’s probation and ordered her to 

execute four of the five years of her previously suspended sentence. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Probation revocation is a two-step process. Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 134 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a 

violation of a condition of probation has occurred. Id. Second, the trial court must make a 

determination as to whether the violation warrants revocation. Id. It is well settled that

violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Wilson v. State, 

708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). Upon revoking probation, the trial court may 

impose one of several statutory sanctions, including ordering the defendant to execute all or 

part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of sentencing. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-

3(h). We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations for an abuse of 

discretion. Alford, 965 N.E.2d at 124. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is 

clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

Ballew admits that she violated several conditions of her probation. She challenges 

only the trial court’s decision to revoke her probation and order her to execute four years of 

her previously suspended sentence. The trial court found that Ballew had violated at least 

five of the conditions of her probation. Indeed, Ballew was on probation for a drug-related 

offense, and several of her violations involved drugs and/or her refusal to participate in drug 

rehabilitation efforts. Her violations are evidence of her apparent determination to proceed 

down a self-destructive path. Despite her insistence on appeal that she has since made great 
5

efforts to improve her life, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that incarceration, 

rather than the home detention she now urges, is the best option. In short, Ballew’s behavior 

indicates that she requires the constant supervision that incarceration provides. Accordingly, 

we cannot say that the trial court’s decision to revoke Ballew’s probation and order her to 

execute some of her previously suspended sentence is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before the court. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Affirmed.

BARNES, J., and PYLE, J., concur.