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

Anthony C. Lawrence

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kelly A. Loy

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Amber Lee Ryle,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 6, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1603-CR-594

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Mark Dudley, Judge.

Cause No. 48D01-0808-FC-220

Barteau, Senior Judge

Statement of the Case

[1] Amber Lee Ryle appeals the revocation of her probation. We affirm.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1603-CR-594 | December 6, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Issue

[2] Ryle raises one issue, which we restate as: whether there is sufficient evidence 

to support the determination that she violated a condition of probation.

Factual and Procedural History

[3] In 2009, Ryle pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property and one 

count of forgery, all felonies. The trial court sentenced her to seven years, with 

five years to be suspended and served on probation.

[4] After Ryle began serving her term of probation, she violated several conditions

of her probation. On September 17, 2013, the trial court revoked her five-year 

suspended sentence and ordered her to serve two years. The court agreed to 

stay the imposition of the remaining three years if Ryle reported to the 

probation office on a monthly basis for one year and did not commit any new 

violations of the law for one year, among other requirements.

[5] After she was released from her two-year sentence and began serving the oneyear probationary period, the State filed several notices alleging that Ryle had 

violated the conditions of her probation. The court held a series of evidentiary 

hearings. On February 10, 2016, the State filed an amended notice, dismissing 

all allegations except a claim that Ryle had violated a condition of probation by 

committing a new criminal offense, specifically theft, on June 17, 2015.

[6] On February 16, 2016, the trial court held a final evidentiary hearing. After the 

hearing, the court issued an order stating, in relevant part: “Court finds by 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1603-CR-594 | December 6, 2016 Page 2 of 5
preponderance of evidence defendant violated her stayed sentence as alleged in 

paragraph 3(a) [the theft allegation]. Court orders the 3-year stay lifted and 

defendant to serve the executed time at the Indiana Department of Correction.” 

Appellant’s App. p. 12. This appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Probation is an alternative to commitment at the Indiana Department of 

Correction. Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied. 

A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence on probation. Id. A trial court 

may revoke a defendant’s probation if the person has violated a condition of 

probation during the probationary period. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2015). A 

probation revocation proceeding is civil in nature, and the State must prove the 

alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 

752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). If the court determines the defendant has 

violated a condition of probation, the court has a variety of options for 

imposing sanctions, up to and including ordering the defendant to serve all of 

the sentence that had been suspended. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3.

[8] When we review the sufficiency of the evidence in a probation revocation case, 

we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. 

Pierce, 44 N.E.3d at 755. Instead, we look only at the evidence favorable to the 

judgment and all reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. If the trial court’s finding 

of a violation is supported by substantial evidence of probative value, then we 

will affirm. Id. When the alleged probation violation is the commission of a 

new crime, conviction of the new crime is not required. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1603-CR-594 | December 6, 2016 Page 3 of 5
[9] The State alleged Ryle violated the conditions of her probation by committing a 

new crime, theft. In order to prevail, the State was required to prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that Ryle (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) 

exerted unauthorized control (3) over property of Walmart (4) with intent to 

deprive Walmart of any part of its value or use. Ind. Code § 35-43-4-2 (2014). 

We also note that a person who knowingly or intentionally aids, induces, or 

causes another person to commit an offense also commits that offense. Ind. 

Code § 35-41-2-4 (1977).

[10] On June 17, 2015, Amanda McIlwain was working at Walmart, performing her 

duties as a loss prevention officer. As she monitored the security system, she 

saw two women, later identified as Ryle and Holly Craver, in the women’s 

clothing department. McIlwain noticed them because they had picked up 

clothing items without looking at the prices, which seemed unusual to her.

[11] McIlwain watched Ryle and Craver go to the dressing rooms and enter separate 

rooms. Ryle carried the clothing, and Craver carried nothing but a purse. 

McIlwain left the monitoring room and went to the dressing rooms. Upon 

arriving, she saw that Ryle had entered Craver’s dressing room.

[12] When Ryle and Craver left the dressing room, neither of them were carrying 

any of the clothes they had picked up. McIlwain confirmed with the dressing 

room attendant that she had previously cleaned out the dressing rooms, and 

when McIlwain looked into the room Ryle and Craver had just left, there was 

no clothing there.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1603-CR-594 | December 6, 2016 Page 4 of 5
[13] Next, McIlwain followed the women to the shoe department, where they each 

picked up a pair of sandals. They went to the checkout area, where they paid 

for the sandals but nothing else. As Ryle and Craver approached the exit, 

McIlwain stopped them, identified herself, and asked them to go to the security 

room. When they arrived in the room, McIlwain looked in Craver’s purse and 

found several items of clothing still bearing Walmart price tags. McIlwain 

asked Ryle if she knew the merchandise was in Craver’s purse, and Ryle 

admitted she did. Ryle further admitted that she had picked out the items and 

had given them to Craver in the dressing room.

[14] This evidence is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Ryle committed the offense of theft, either as a principal or an accomplice,

thereby violating a condition of her probation. See Pierce, 44 N.E.3d at 755-56 

(eyewitness testimony sufficient to establish defendant violated probation by 

committing theft). Ryle points to the absence of any security camera recordings 

and cites her own testimony, in which she stated that she did not know Craver 

was stealing clothes. These arguments are, in substance, a request to reweigh 

the evidence, which our standard of review forbids.

Conclusion

[15] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1603-CR-594 | December 6, 2016 Page 5 of 5