Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 1 of 6

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

Christopher L. Clerc 

Columbus, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Anthony E. Jeffares, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 28, 2016 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

03A01-1605-CR-1176 

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Circuit Court 

The Honorable Stephen R. 

Heimann, Judge. 

Trial Court Cause No. 

03C01-1110-FB-5718 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary 

[1] Anthony E. Jeffares contends that the trial court abused its discretion in 

sentencing him to the balance of his eighteen-year sentence for violating his 

probation (for a second time) in this case. Finding no abuse of discretion, we 

affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] In April 2012, Jeffares pled guilty to Class B felony burglary. The trial court 

sentenced him to eighteen years, with three years suspended. In March 2014, 

the trial court modified Jeffares’ sentence. It placed him in the Community 

Transition Program for approximately three months. Upon completion of the 

program, the court suspended the balance of his sentence and placed him on 

probation for five years. 

[3] Jeffares completed the program and started probation in June 2014. Six months 

later, in November 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke Jeffares’ probation 

for using heroin and failing to pay fees. Jeffares was referred to an intensive 

outpatient program (IOP), but he never completed the treatment. Jeffares 

admitted violating his probation, and the trial court sentenced him to nine 

months in jail and extended his probation. 

[4] In March 2016, the State filed a second petition to revoke Jeffares’ probation for 

testing positive for methamphetamine and marijuana, committing the new 

crimes of possession of methamphetamine, marijuana, and paraphernalia, and 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 3 of 6

failing to pay fees. Jeffares admitted violating his probation and asked to be 

placed back in community corrections. Jeffares’ probation officer testified that 

the probation department had tried “everything that we have” with Jeffares, 

including “our most intensive programming with work release,” yet Jeffares 

“continues to use drugs.” Tr. p. 10. The probation officer concluded, “we just 

don’t have anything more that we can offer him, sadly.” Id. The trial court 

revoked Jeffares’ probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his 

eighteen-year sentence (with credit of 1137 actual days), to be served in prison. 

The court reasoned: 

Prior to incarceration, your choice of drugs was 

methamphetamine or opiates. You described your typical day as 

follows: get high or find a way to, did the current Burglary to 

support your drug habit. You reported, I’m not a career 

criminal. I just have a bad drug problem. Hope I can work on 

this. . . . 

So you’re 53 and I look back through your criminal history, 

dating back to 1979, as a juvenile. All sorts of charges. . . . Then 

as an adult and you had treatment opportunities; rehab in ’82, ’85 

Koala and Aftercare ’86 IOP and Aftercare. . . . Auto Theft back 

in 2004; evaluation and follow recommendation of the 

evaluation. But even after that treatment opportunity, admits to 

violating probation by ingesting and testing positive for 

marijuana in ’06; cocaine and marijuana in ’07. Sent you to 

DOC. 

* * * * * 

The State has already gone over what happened in this case. 

You got in the [DOC], you got some treatment and now you’re 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 4 of 6

coming here and saying, oh, it wasn’t the right treatment; didn’t 

get what I needed. 

Your sentence was modified out and you were off of the 

Community Transition Program on the 11th day of June, 2014. 

In November of 2014 was the Petition to Revoke. Instead of 

sending you back to prison, . . . you were put in jail, you were 

given credit for it and you got out then on March 24, 2015 and 

now here we are again. 

You said what you need is . . . more help and that’s right, you 

do. There’s no question about it. You do need more help. But 

where you need help from is from yourself. That’s the one 

person that needs to help you because there’s been all sorts of 

other people who have tried and tried and tried. But until you 

determine that you’re going to help yourself, no matter how 

much other people try to help you, it’s not going to make a 

difference. 

Id. at 30-32. 

[5] Jeffares now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision 

[6] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must determine 

that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods v. State,

892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Second, if a violation is proven, then the trial 

court must decide whether the violation warrants revocation of probation. Id. 

If the trial court finds that the probationer violated a condition of probation, the 

court has several options: 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 5 of 6

(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 (1) year beyond the original probationary period. 

(3) 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). A trial court’s sentencing decision for violating 

probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 

184, 188 (Ind. 2007). 

[7] Jeffares contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to 

serve the balance of his eighteen-year sentence because he admitted violating 

his probation (like a defendant who pleads guilty) and because he “made 

contact with” an addictions program. Appellant’s Br. p. 8. The record shows 

that Jeffares violated his probation (a second time) for, at the very least, testing 

positive for drugs, which would have been relatively easy to prove without 

Jeffares’ admission. In sentencing Jeffares to the balance of his eighteen-year 

sentence, the trial court noted that he had been given multiple chances in this

case. First, Jeffares had his eighteen-year sentence modified after serving just 

two years. Then, after violating his probation the first time for using drugs, he 

was sentenced to jail instead of prison. In addition, the record shows that not 

only has Jeffares been given treatment opportunities throughout his adult life, 

he was given them in this case, too. Yet he failed to take advantage of them. 

Given Jeffares’ failures to address his drug problems and his pattern of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1605-CR-1176 | September 28, 2016 Page 6 of 6

squandering the opportunities that he has been given, it was within the trial 

court’s discretion to sentence him to the balance of his eighteen-year sentence 

for violating his probation a second time. 

[8] Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Najam, J., concur.