Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 1 of 7

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

Karl M. Scharnberg

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert A. Olson,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 24, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

03A01-1504-CR-155

Appeal from the Bartholomew 

Circuit Court

The Honorable Stephen R. 

Heimann, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

03C01-1010-FD-2276

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 2 of 7

Statement of the Case

[1] Robert A. Olson (“Olson”) appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation 

and ordering him to serve his previously suspended eighteen-month sentence in 

the Department of Correction. While on probation from a Class D felony

operating a vehicle while intoxicated (“OVWI”) conviction, Olson committed 

another OVWI offense and then fled to Florida, where he committed yet 

another OVWI offense. After the State extradited him back to Indiana, Olson

pled guilty to and was convicted of the Indiana OVWI offense, and he admitted 

to violating probation. The trial court revoked Olson’s probation and ordered 

him to serve his previously suspended sentence. Olson now appeals the trial 

court’s imposition of his entire suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Olson—who had five OVWI

convictions—to serve his previously suspended sentence, we affirm the trial 

court’s revocation of Olson’s probation. 

[2] Affirmed.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Olson to 

serve his previously suspended sentence.

Facts

[3] In March 2010, the State charged Olson with Class D felony OVWI. After 

Olson failed to appear for his initial hearing, the trial court issued an arrest 

warrant. In July 2010, Olson appeared for his initial hearing and was then 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 3 of 7

released by the trial court. Thereafter, Olson failed to appear at a scheduled 

status hearing and pretrial hearing. The trial court again issued a warrant for 

Olson’s arrest. In September 2010, the State served the warrant on Olson and 

transported him from the Jennings County Jail.

[4] In February 2010, Olson pled guilty to the Class D felony OVWI as charged. 

In March 2011, the trial court imposed a sentence of eighteen (18) months, 

which was suspended to probation. The trial court also ordered Olson to serve 

four (4) days in jail and placed him in Bartholomew County Community 

Corrections for six (6) months. As part of Olson’s probation, he was to 

complete thirty-two (32) hours of community service, participate in a substance 

abuse program, refrain from consuming alcohol, and pay restitution and 

extradition fees. 

[5] Five months later, in August 2011, the State filed a notice of probation 

violation, alleging that Olson had violated his probation by: (1) consuming 

alcohol; (2) committing a new Class D felony OVWI offense in Bartholomew 

County (“2011 OVWI case”) and failing to report it to the probation 

department;

1

(3) failing to complete recommended services; (4) failing to 

complete required community service hours; and (5) being behind in paying his 

fees. Upon learning of the revocation petition, Olson fled to Florida. When 

 

1 This offense was filed under cause number 03C01-1108-FD-4604.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 4 of 7

Olson failed to appear at his September 2011 initial probation revocation 

hearing, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. 

[6] Three years later, in October 2014, the State located Olson after he was arrested 

in Florida for yet another OVWI offense (“2014 Florida OVWI”).

2

 The State 

then extradited him back to Indiana to appear for his revocation hearing and his 

2011 OVWI case. 

[7] In a joint hearing held on February 2, 2015, Olson pled guilty to the lesser 

included offense of Class C misdemeanor in his 2011 OVWI case, and he 

admitted to violating probation in this current case on appeal.3 The trial court 

determined that Olson “violate[d] the terms of his probation by consuming 

alcohol in August 2011; committing Operating a Vehicle while Intoxicated, a 

Class C Misdemeanor on August 20, 2011 and not completing the 

recommended community service hours.” (App. 7). 

[8] On March 26, 2015, the trial court held another joint hearing on the probation 

revocation and the 2011 OVWI case. During this hearing, the trial court 

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

previously suspended eighteen month sentence in the Department of 

Correction. When doing so, the trial court explained its reasoning as follows: 

 

2 According to Olson, he was convicted of the OVWI offense in Florida and given one year of probation.

3 Olson did not request the trial court reporter to transcribe this February 2015 hearing; thus, the transcript of 

this hearing is not before us as part of the record on appeal. As a result, any facts regarding this hearing will 

come from the chronological case summary (“CCS”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 5 of 7

“[W]e’ve had to extradite you twice on these cases. You absconded 

immediately after violating your probation . . . [Y]ou’ve had five DUIs and 

have had two since you have been on probation in this case.” (Tr. 32). For 

Olson’s 2011 OVWI case, the trial court suspended his license and sentenced 

him to sixty days with credit for time served. Olson now appeals from his 

probation revocation case.

Decision

[9] Olson argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to serve his previously 

suspended sentence. 

[10] Upon determining that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the

trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was 

suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). 

“Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than 

incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to 

proceed.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “If this discretion 

were not given to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on 

appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future 

defendants.” Id. As a result, we review a trial court’s sentencing decision from

a probation revocation for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Sanders v. State, 825 

N.E.2d 952, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied). An abuse of discretion 

occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances. Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 6 of 7

[11] Citing to Anglemyer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007), Olson suggests that the 

trial court should have given “mitigating weight” to his admission that he 

violated the terms of his probation. (Olson’s Br. 4). “Anglemyer, however, 

applies to the imposition of an initial sentence—not a sentence imposed 

following the revocation of probation.” Berry v. State, 904 N.E.2d 365, 366 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Instead, here, the trial court ordered Olson to serve the 

suspended balance of his already imposed sentence, which he cannot 

collaterally attack. See id. (citing Stephens v. State, 818 N.E.2d 936, 939 (Ind. 

2004) (observing that a defendant cannot collaterally attack a sentence on 

appeal from a probation revocation)).4

[12] The record reveals that the trial court had ample basis for its decision to order 

Olson to serve his previously suspended sentence in the Department of 

Correction. Here, Olson’s violation of his probation was based, in part, on his 

consumption of alcohol and the commission of the 2011 OVWI case in 

Indiana, which is the same type of offense as the one for which he was placed 

on probation. Indeed, during the final revocation hearing, the trial court

specifically told Olson its reasoning for ordering him to serve his suspended 

sentence, which included the fact that Olson had five OVWI convictions and 

 

4 We also reject Olson’s reliance on Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), as the facts of that 

case are distinguishable from this case. In Puckett, we held that a special judge in the defendant’s probation 

revocation hearing had “consider[ed] multiple improper factors” such as whether the original plea accepted 

by the original trial judge was too lenient. Puckett, 956 N.E.2d at 1189. Here, however, we have no such 

circumstances. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 03A01-1504-CR-155 | August 24, 2015 Page 7 of 7

had absconded to Florida after violating probation and avoided the revocation 

allegations for three years.

[13] Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by ordering Olson to serve his previously suspended sentence. For 

the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of Olson’s

probation.

[14] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Robb, J., concur.