Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2062 | January 15, 2019 Page 1 of 4

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP

Madison, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Caroline G. Templeton

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Grubbs,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 15, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2062

Appeal from the Dearborn

Superior Court

The Hon. Jonathan Cleary, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15D01-1802-CM-74

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2062 | January 15, 2019 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary 

[1] In April of 2018, Grubbs pled guilty to invasion of privacy, and the trial court 

imposed a 365-day sentence, all suspended to probation. On August 1, 2018, 

after Grubbs admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation, the trial 

court ordered that he execute ninety days of his previously-suspended sentence. 

Grubbs challenges the trial court’s order that he serve ninety days of his 

previously-suspended sentence. Because Grubbs’s appeal is moot, we dismiss. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] On February 5, 2018, the State charged Grubbs with Class A misdemeanor 

invasion of privacy. On April 17, 2018, Grubbs pled guilty as charged and was 

sentenced to 365 days of incarceration, all suspended to probation. Among the 

terms of Grubbs’s probation was that he not commit any crimes. On July 30, 

2018, the State alleged that Grubbs had violated the terms of his probation by 

committing Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and Class B misdemeanor 

public intoxication the week before. At the initial hearing on July 31, 2018, 

Grubbs admitted the allegations. On August 1, 2018, the trial court ordered 

Grubbs to execute ninety days of his previously-suspended sentence. Grubbs 

filed his corrected appellant’s brief on November 13, 2018, 104 days later. 

Discussion and Decision 

[3] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which 

a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2062 | January 15, 2019 Page 3 of 4

2007) (citing Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)). Once 

a trial court has exercised grace in ordering probation rather than incarceration, 

the trial court should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. 

After the trial court determines that the probationer has violated the terms of 

probation, the trial court then determines the sanction for the violation. Pierce v. 

State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A trial court’s sanction 

decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion, which occurs where the decision 

is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt, 878 

N.E.2d at 188. Although Grubbs does not deny that he violated the terms of 

his probation, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him 

to serve ninety days of his previously-suspended sentence. 

[4] The State maintains that Grubbs’s appeal is moot as he has already served the 

ninety-day revoked portion of his previously-suspended sentence. By the time 

Grubbs filed his corrected brief on November 13, 2018, he had already served 

the ninety days imposed by the trial court, even if we assume that he earned no 

credit time against the term. “The long-standing rule in Indiana courts has been 

that a case is deemed moot when no effective relief can be rendered to the 

parties before the court.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009). As 

we have noted,

An issue is deemed moot when it is no longer “live” or when the 

parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of its 

resolution. See In re Utley, 565 N.E.2d 1152, 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 

1991). Accordingly, where the principal questions at issue cease 

to be of real controversy between the parties, the “‘errors 

assigned become moot questions and this court will not retain 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2062 | January 15, 2019 Page 4 of 4

jurisdiction to decide them.’” Id. (quoting Bartholomew County 

Hospital v. Ryan, 440 N.E.2d 754, 757 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)). 

Stated differently, when we are unable to provide effective relief 

upon an issue, the issue is deemed moot, and we will not reverse 

the trial court’s determination “where absolutely no change in 

the status quo will result.” In re Utley, 565 N.E.2d at 1154 

(quotations omitted).

Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied. Grubbs 

admitted his violation of probation and argues only that revoking ninety days of 

his previously-suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion. That term has 

already been served. We are therefore unable to grant the relief Grubbs seeks 

because even a decision in his favor would result in no change in the status quo. 

We agree with the State that Grubbs’s claim is moot.1 

[5] The appeal is dismissed. 

Bailey, J., and Brown, J., concur. 

 

1

 We recognize that Indiana courts have long recognized public-interest exception to the general rule. Jones, 847 

N.E.2d at 200. “A public interest exception may be invoked upon the confluence of three elements: (1) the issue 

involves a question of great public importance; (2) the factual situation precipitating the issue is likely to recur; 

and (3) the issue arises in a context which will continue to evade review.” Id. While it is true that probation

revocations occur with great frequency, Grubbs does not argue, much less establish, that his claim is of great 

public interest or arises in a context likely to evade review.