Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Edward Jones, Jr.,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

December 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A01-1506-CR-623

Appeal from the Dearborn 

Superior Court

The Honorable Sally A. 

McLaughlin, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15D02-1212-FC-263

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 2 of 4

[1] Edward Jones appeals the judgment of the trial court ordering him to serve four 

years of his previously suspended sentence following his second probation 

violation. Finding no error, we affirm. 

Facts

[2] On August 19, 2013, Jones pleaded guilty to two counts of class C felony 

intimidation with a deadly weapon and several class C misdemeanors—hunting 

without the consent of the landowner, illegal possession/taking of white tail 

deer, illegal possession/taking of river otter, hunting deer with illegal devices, 

and a taxidermist violation. The trial court sentenced Jones to consecutive 

terms of eight and two years for the intimidation convictions and to 60-day 

terms for each misdemeanor conviction, to be served concurrently to each other 

and to the intimidation terms. This resulted in a total sentence of ten years, of 

which the trial court ordered Jones to serve two years incarcerated and eight 

years under supervised probation.

[3] On December 12, 2013, the trial court ordered Jones to serve 180 days of his 

previously suspended sentence after he admitted to violating the terms of his 

probation. On March 31, 2015, the trial court found that Jones had violated 

the terms of his probation a second time after Jones admitted to stealing 

hunting equipment and hunting illegally. As a result, on May 20, 2015, the trial 

court ordered him to serve an additional four years of his previously suspended 

sentence. Jones now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[4] Probation is not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled, but rather a 

matter of grace left to the discretion of the trial court. Prewitt v. State, 878 

N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The trial court has discretion to determine the 

conditions of probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. 

Id. “If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were 

scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order 

probation to future defendants.” Id. Accordingly, we review a trial court’s 

decision to revoke probation only for an abuse of discretion. Id. 

[5] Here, the trial court found that Jones suffers from Huntington’s disease. Jones

argues that the trial court’s decision to revoke four years of his probation “was 

not necessary to bring about his reform” in light of this circumstance. 

Appellant’s Br. p. 10. While taking Jones’s disease into account, the trial court 

nevertheless determined that other circumstances counseled in favor of revoking 

four years of his probation. 

[6] The trial court first noted that Jones has shown a persistent disregard for the 

terms of his probation, as this is his second violation. Furthermore, the trial 

court found these new violations to be particularly serious, in that they were 

new criminal offenses, similar in nature to Jones’s initial criminal offenses, that 

represent a continuation of his original criminal conduct. The trial court also 

took into account Jones’s long list of prior convictions, many of which relate to 

hunting. Finally, the trial acknowledged Jones’s diagnosis, but noted that the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1506-CR-623 | December 30, 2015 Page 4 of 4

disease was not so debilitating as to inhibit him from committing the new 

crimes. 

[7] At the hearing, Jones introduced a medical research paper that suggests that 

sufferers of diseases such as Huntington’s are more likely to commit crimes 

such as theft. Appellant’s App. p. 278. We acknowledge that a trial court 

would be acting well within its discretion to take such evidence into 

consideration in a probation revocation proceeding. However, while we 

assume the research paper accurately characterizes those who suffer from such 

diseases generally, we note that there is no evidence in the record that indicates 

to what extent Jones’s disease had progressed when he committed the 

violations at issue here, or that the violations came as a result of the disease. 

See id. at 226-38. Finally, we note that the trial court opted not to impose the 

maximum sanction in this case, affording Jones some lenience by leaving a 

large portion of his initial sentence suspended to probation. We cannot say that 

the trial court abused its discretion under these circumstances. 

[8] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.