Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Billy G. Luke,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 20, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A01-1409-CR-418

Appeal from the Dearborn Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jonathan N. Cleary, 

Judge

Cause No. 15D01-1202-CM-111

Bradford, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Appellant-Defendant Billy Gene Luke was convicted of four counts of public 

indecency after exposing his genitals on several occasions to four female 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 Page 2 of 6

pharmacy employees. Luke was sentenced to an aggregate term of 1095 days

with 725 days suspended to probation. During Luke’s probationary period, he 

was convicted of several additional misdemeanor and criminal offenses and, 

while incarcerated, Luke attempted to solicit another individual to intimidate 

the four female victims. Ultimately, the trial court revoked Luke’s home 

detention as a result of his subsequent convictions. Luke argues that his 

probationary period did not begin until he was actually released on probation 

and that criminal offenses committed after sentencing but prior to release on 

probation are not sufficient to support probation or home detention revocation. 

We disagree with Luke and affirm the trial court’s revocation of his home 

detention. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 25, 2012, Luke was convicted of four counts of public indecency, a 

Class A misdemeanor, after it was found that he had exposed his genitals on 

multiple occasions to four women who worked at the pharmacy across the 

street from his residence in Dillsborough. On August 3, 2012, the trial court 

sentenced Luke to an aggregate term of 1095 days with 725 days suspended to 

probation. On May 23, 2013, Luke was released on probation. Between June 

and August of 2013, while on probation, Luke broke multiple windows at the 

pharmacy, the local police station, and other stores in the area. On July 9, 

2013, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) requested a probation 

revocation hearing and amended the request on August 23, 2013, after Luke 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 Page 3 of 6

was charged with invasion of privacy, criminal trespass, and voyeurism (these 

charges were unrelated to Luke’s breaking the windows). On December 23, 

2013, the court revoked 730 days of the suspended sentence and ordered Luke 

serve the remainder of his sentence on home detention. Luke was released on 

home detention on January 2, 2014 but was arrested on January 10, 2014 for 

Class D felony invasion of privacy, for which he was convicted in July of 2014. 

[3] While incarcerated, Luke made multiple phone calls to his former cellmate, 

Chase Merkel. (State’s Ex. 3-5) During these calls, Luke asked Merkel to break 

windows at the pharmacy where the four victims worked, intimidate the victims 

by throwing a “toy” (believed to be a dildo) inside the pharmacy, slash one of 

the victim’s tires, and leave a condom full of bullets with a note reading “last 

warning” at one of the victim’s residences. State’s Ex. 4. Also while 

incarcerated, Luke wrote letters to the trial court and prosecutor. In his letter to 

the prosecutor, Luke threatened to kill a Dillsboro police officer and threatened

the four pharmacy employee-victims. 

[4] On August 21, 2014, Luke was convicted of seven counts of Class A 

misdemeanor criminal mischief, relating to the broken windows, as well as one 

count of Class C felony stalking for violating a no-contact order and stalking the 

same four pharmacy employees. The acts supporting the stalking charge were 

committed at various times between January 24, 2012 and February 19, 2014. 

On August 28, 2014, the trial court revoked Luke’s home detention based on 

his subsequent criminal convictions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 Page 4 of 6

Discussion and Decision

Luke argues that the State provided insufficient evidence that he violated the 

terms of his home detention.

I. Standard of Review

[5] The State must prove a probation violation by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), reh. denied. 

On review, we neither weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of 

witnesses. Id. We look only to the evidence most favorable to the 

State. Id. So long as substantial evidence of probative value exists to 

support the trial court’s finding that a violation occurred, we will 

affirm the judgment. Id.

[6] Parker v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1083, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997). The 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). “[T]he standard of review for a 

petition for termination of in-home detention privileges is analogous to that of a 

probation revocation hearing.” Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951, 953 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 1998).

II. Sufficiency of Evidence

[7] Luke does not argue that there was insufficient evidence that he engaged in 

conduct that would violate the rules of his home detention. Rather, Luke 

argues that he did not engage in such conduct during his “probationary period” 

for the purposes of Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3. Luke argues that Section 

35-38-2-3 requires that, to revoke a person’s probation, the trial court must find 

that a violation occurred specifically during the period in which the person was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 Page 5 of 6

released on probation. Such an interpretation would mean that violations 

during any period of time after sentencing, but prior to being released on 

probation, would not be sufficient to justify revocation of probation. However, 

we have previously interpreted Section 35-38-2-3 and reached a different 

conclusion. 

In Ashley v. State, 717 N.E.2d 927, 928 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g 

denied, this court held that the probationary period begins immediately 

after sentencing and ends at the conclusion of the probationary phases 

of the defendant’s sentence. Furthermore, in Gardner v. State, 678 

N.E.2d 398, 400-401 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), this court held that: 

In Ashba v. State [(1991) Ind. App., 570 N.E.2d 937] ..., 

we held that a defendant who was on parole from the 

Indiana Department of Correction, but not yet on 

probation, can violate his probation prospectively. The court 

noted that [Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h)] allows 

the court to revoke probation if it finds that the 

defendant violated “a condition at any time before 

termination of the [probationary] period.” 

Crump v. State, 740 N.E.2d 564, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (emphasis added). 

We have applied these same probation revocation standards to placements in 

Community Corrections, such as home detention. Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 

998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). 

[8] Luke was sentenced on August 3, 2012, and his probation, had it been 

successfully completed, would have terminated on August 3, 2015. (App. 153-

56, 158) Pursuant to Ashley, this entire three-year period represents Luke’s 

“probationary period,” during which Luke committed and was convicted of a 

host of new offenses. On August 22, 2013, Luke was charged with invasion of 

privacy, criminal trespass, and voyeurism. Luke admitted to those charges 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1409-CR-418 | March 20, 2015 Page 6 of 6

following the State’s August 23, 2013 probation revocation petition and, based 

thereon, the trial court revoked Luke’s probation and ordered him to serve the 

remainder of his sentence on home detention. On August 21, 2014, Luke was 

convicted of eight counts of criminal mischief as a result of offenses which were 

committed between June and August of 2013. These offenses were 

undoubtedly committed during Luke’s probationary period. It is irrelevant that 

they were committed prior to when Luke began his home detention. As such, 

the court had sufficient evidence that Luke violated the terms of his home 

detention. 

[9] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

[10] Vaidik, C.J., and Kirsch, J., concur.