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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DONALD E.C. LEICHT GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Kokomo, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

MICHAEL GENE WORDEN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

JAMES KUCHOLICK, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 34A05-1305-CR-255

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE HOWARD SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable William C. Menges, Judge

Cause No. 34D01-0912-FD-1164

December 31, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BAKER, Judge 
2

Appellant-defendant James Kucholick appeals the trial court’s revocation of his 

probation and argues that the trial court erred when it ordered his suspended sentences to 

be executed. Kucholick admitted to violating his probation, but argues that the trial court 

erred in ordering his sentences executed when his probation violations consisted of using

marijuana, which, Kucholick contends, is something “the majority of Americans don’t 

even thin[k] should be a crime.” Appellant’s Br. p. 5. Kucholick’s flippancy concerning 

violating Indiana law by using marijuana is simply one more illustration of his 

disinclination to reform. In light of Kucholick’s repeated probation violations, we cannot 

say that the trial court erred in revoking his probation or ordering the remainder of his 

suspended sentences to be executed. 

FACTS

On July 7, 2006, Kucholick pleaded guilty to class B felony possession of cocaine 

and was given a fifteen-year sentence, with three and one-half years executed in in-home 

detention, and the balance suspended to supervised probation. On September 29, 2010, 

Kucholick pleaded guilty to class D felony possession of marijuana, and was sentenced to 

two years, with six months executed and eighteen months suspended to supervised 

probation. This sentence was ordered to run consecutive to Kucholick’s sentence for 

possession of cocaine. 

On May 3, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke Kucholick’s suspended 

sentence for possession of cocaine, and on August 3, 2012, the State filed a petition to 

revoke his suspended sentence for possession of marijuana. On April 24, 2013, the trial 
3

court held a sentencing hearing. It heard evidence that Kucholick’s probation officer 

reported that, out of the eight times Kucholick had been screened for marijuana, he had 

only passed once. The probation officer also stated that Kucholick sometimes failed to 

attend support group meetings as required by his probation and that once Kucholick 

forged his meeting verification sheet. The trial court revoked Kucholick’s probation and 

ordered that his suspended sentences be executed. Kucholick was ordered to serve the 

remaining 548 days of his sentence for possession of marijuana, with 86 days credited, 

and the remaining 3,236 days of his sentence for possession of cocaine, with 320 days 

credit. 

Kucholick now appeals. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

The decision to revoke probation is within the sole discretion of the trial court. 

Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). On appeal, we review that decision for 

an abuse of discretion. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We consider 

only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or 

judging the credibility of the witnesses. Id. If we find there is substantial evidence of 

probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a defendant violated the terms of 

his probation, this Court will affirm the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. Id. at 

639-40.

Here, Kucholick admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by using 

marijuana. Tr. p. 13-15. As noted above, Kucholick had failed seven out of eight drug 
4

screenings and was only sporadic in his attendance of the support group meetings he was 

required to attend. Appellant’s App. p. 36. In light of these circumstances, there was 

more than sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine that Kucholick had violated 

his probation, and the trial court did not err when it revoked his probation and ordered 

that the remainder of his suspended sentences be executed. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

NAJAM, J., and CRONE, J., concur.