Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William S. Matherly,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

May 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

84A04-1701-CR-198

Appeal from the Vigo County 

Superior Court

The Honorable John T. Roach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D01-1209-FC-2974

84D01-1207-FB-2176

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 Page 2 of 6

[1] William S. Matherly appeals the trial court’s order, following revocation of his 

probation, that Matherly serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department 

of Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2012, under two different cause numbers, Matherly was charged with Class 

B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon,1 Class C 

felony possession of an altered handgun,2 and Class C felony burglary.

3

 

Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pled guilty to possession of an altered 

handgun in one cause and burglary in the other cause. He was sentenced to 

four years on the possession charge with “[t]wo (2) years of said sentence . . . 

executed on Work Release.” (App. Vol. 2 at 63.) He was also sentenced to a 

consecutive six-year sentence for the burglary charge. “Two (2) years of said 

sentence [to] be executed on Work Release . . . and four (4) years . . . 

suspended. [Matherly wa]s placed on formal probation for four (4) years.” (Id.

at 64.)

[3] In 2015, the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging Matherly had 

failed drug screens for methamphetamine and marijuana. The trial court 

ordered Matherly be “returned to probation pursuant to the original terms and 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-47-4-5 (2012).

2 Ind. Code § 35-47-2-18 (1983) and Ind. Code § 35-47-2-23 (1997).

3 Ind. Code § 35-43-2-1 (1999).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 Page 3 of 6

conditions [and to] enter Freebirds Solutions, Inc. . . . until he is successfully 

discharged[.]” (Id. at 87-88.) However, on October 20, 2016, the State filed 

another petition to revoke in which it asserted Matherly had been arrested for 

two new charges and tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine. (Id.

at 91.) Matherly admitted the violations, but the State and Matherly could not 

agree as to the sanction. 

[4] At the hearing on that petition, Matherly’s probation officer, Amber 

Lowdermilk, stated Matherly “does well with structure,” (Tr. at 15), but noted

when she referred Matherly for outpatient alcohol and drug counseling, she did 

not “believe that was ever followed up on.” (Id. at 13.) “[G]iven [Matherly’s] 

prior violations and issues with the probation,” Lowdermilk did not believe he 

would “be successful on probation [and] the only option [she] would think of 

[as a viable alternative] is in-patient or DOC.” (Id.)

[5] Matherly and his wife testified that his wife was homeless, disabled, and 

depended on him for care. Matherly also testified that he was currently 

unemployed due to the arrest underlying the probation violation, but he “was 

going to be hired [at Burger King in Brazil, Indiana] right before he was 

arrested.” (Id. at 18.) Matherly said his wife had checked with the manager at 

Burger King and “[the manager] said that she would still give [him] a chance.” 

(Id.) Matherly admitted he had addiction issues and requested “to be placed in 

the Jail Linkage Program and [given] another chance at a Sober Living 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 Page 4 of 6

environment.” (Id. at 21.) The trial court ordered Matherly to serve the 

remainder of his sentence for the burglary conviction at the DOC.4

Discussion and Decision

[6] Matherly asserts the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to serve the 

remainder of his sentence in the DOC when it is an undue hardship for his 

disabled wife, he suffers from substance abuse addiction, and there is a “less 

restrictive and more reasonable alternative available.” (Appellant’s Br. at 8.) 

The alternative to which he points is Vigo County’s Jail Linkage program. 

[7] Matherly admitted his violation, and “proof of a single violation of the 

conditions of probation is sufficient to support the decision to revoke 

probation.” Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), reh’g 

denied, trans. denied. On finding a defendant violated his 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). We affirm the 

sanction imposed by a trial court following a probation violation unless the trial 

court abused its discretion. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). 

“An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic 

and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. When reviewing the decision, 

we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without assessing 

 

4 The State and Matherly agreed the sentence for the possession of the altered handgun had been completed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 Page 5 of 6

the credibility of the witnesses. McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind. 

2005). 

[8] Matherly had a previous probation violation, for which the trial court allowed 

him to remain on probation and to seek treatment for his addiction issues. 

However, Matherly again tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine 

in 2016. Following testimony from his probation officer, himself, and his wife, 

the trial court ordered Matherly to serve the remainder of his sentence in the 

DOC. The trial court had given Matherly a chance to take advantage of 

addiction counseling but he continued to use drugs and commit other crimes. 

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, Matherly could help his wife if he 

were not in the DOC, we cannot find an abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 

order for him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC as Matherly

had squandered opportunities given to him by the trial court. See Cox v. State, 

850 N.E.2d 485, 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (no abuse of discretion when court

ordered Cox to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence after failing to 

comply with substance abuse recommendations and being arrested for 

subsequent crimes). 

Conclusion

[9] Matherly has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in ordering 

execution of the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. Accordingly, we 

affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A04-1701-CR-198 | May 24, 2017 Page 6 of 6

[10] Affirmed. 

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.