Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1603-CR-676 | November 14, 2016 Page 1 of 5

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

Douglas S. Walton

Walton Law Office

Evansville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Justin F. Roebel

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

James Ricketts,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 14, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

65A01-1603-CR-676

Appeal from the Posey Superior 

Court

The Honorable S. Brent Almon, 

Judge1

Trial Court Cause No.

65D01-1209-FC-438

 

1

Appellant failed to include the trial court judge on the front page of his Appellant’s Brief. See Indiana

Appellate Rule 43(I) (“The front cover . . . shall conform substantially to Form #App.R. 43-1,” which 

includes the name and title of the presiding judge.). We urge him to follow that rule.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1603-CR-676 | November 14, 2016 Page 2 of 5

May, Judge.

[1] James Ricketts appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He argues 

the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve the remaining

balance of his four-year sentence after he violated his probation. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 24, 2014, Ricketts pled guilty to Class C felony nonsupport of a 

dependent child.

2

 Per the terms of a sentencing agreement, the trial court

ordered Ricketts to serve four years and suspended it all to probation. Under 

the sentencing agreement, Ricketts agreed to standard good behavior 

conditions, including reporting, payment of fees and other conditions imposed 

by the court, maintaining full-time employment, and paying $200.00 each 

month toward child support arrears. Ricketts further acknowledged he owed 

$35,300.92 in child support arrears. 

[3] On July 28, 2014, Probation Officer Courtney Price requested Ricketts undergo 

a drug screening after she received information that Ricketts was using illegal 

drugs. Ricketts’ urine tested positive for methamphetamine, and Ricketts 

admitted using methamphetamine a few days prior to the drug screen. Price 

requested Ricketts seek substance abuse counseling. Ricketts made an initial 

call to Southwest Mental Health Center regarding counseling, but never 

 

2 Ind. Code § 35-46-1-5 (2001). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1603-CR-676 | November 14, 2016 Page 3 of 5

followed up thereafter. On August 7, 2014, and September 11, 2014, Ricketts 

failed to appear for scheduled office meetings with Price.

[4] On November 12, 2014, Price requested Ricketts undergo a second drug screen. 

Ricketts refused to take the drug test. Price warned Ricketts his refusal to 

participate would result in Price filing a petition to revoke his probation. 

Ricketts stated, “I don’t care, I will just go sit a year and be back, I’m not taking 

it.” (1/26/16 Tr. at 22.) 

[5] That same day, Price filed a Petition for Revocation of Probation on behalf of 

the State. The State alleged Ricketts violated the terms of his probation by 

failing to report for scheduled office appointments on two separate occasions, 

failing an instant drug urine analysis, admitting to using methamphetamine, 

refusing to cooperate in subsequent drug urine analyses, and failing to make 

any effort towards payment of child support during August and September 

2014. The court issued a warrant for Ricketts’ arrest.

[6] On November 9, 2015, Ricketts was arrested.3 On December 22, 2015, the 

court held an evidentiary hearing. Ricketts appeared before the court and 

admitted the alleged violations of probation. The hearing was continued to 

January 26, 2016. On January 26, 2016, the court held a dispositional hearing. 

Price and Ricketts testified. Although Ricketts failed to make any payments 

 

3 Other than the trial court renewing the arrest warrant on May 1, 2015, we note the record offers no 

explanation for the one-year time lapse between the trial court’s initial issuance of the arrest warrant and 

Ricketts’ arrest on November 9, 2015. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1603-CR-676 | November 14, 2016 Page 4 of 5

toward his child support arrears in August or September 2014, the court noted 

Ricketts made payments in June, July, October, and November 2014 totaling 

$615.00. On February 23, 2016, the trial court revoked Ricketts’ probation and 

ordered him to serve the balance of his four-year suspended sentence in the 

Indiana Department of Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[7] “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. 

2007). “The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may revoke 

probation if the conditions are violated.” Id. If a court finds a probationer has 

violated a condition of probation, the court may “order 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) (2015). One violation of a condition of probation is enough to 

support a probation revocation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. App. 

Ct. 2015). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an 

abuse of discretion. Id. 

[8] At both the December 22, 2015 and January 26, 2016 hearings, Ricketts 

admitted violating the conditions of his probation by failing to appear for 

scheduled meetings, failing drug screens, and failing to make payments on his 

child support arrears in August and September of 2014. Ricketts committed not 

one, but multiple violations of his probation conditions. Because Indiana Code 

section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) provides the trial court may order execution of all or part 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 65A01-1603-CR-676 | November 14, 2016 Page 5 of 5

of a defendant’s suspended sentence upon a defendant’s probation violation, the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion in doing so when Ricketts had committed 

multiple violations. See Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188 (courts have discretion 

regarding which sanction to impose after finding a violation of probation). 

Conclusion

[9] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Ricketts to serve his 

suspended sentence following his admission of multiple probation violations.

Accordingly, we affirm. 

[10] Affirmed. 

Kirsch, J., and Crone, J., concur.