Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1408-CR-341| January 29, 2015 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Plainfield, 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

James T. Reese,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

January 29, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

73A01-1408-CR-341

Appeal from the Shelby Superior 

Court

The Honorable Jack A. Tandy, 

Judge

Cause No. 73D01-1208-FC-43

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] James T. Reese appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation and 

remanding him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) for thirty of 

the thirty-six months of his suspended sentence stemming from his conviction 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1408-CR-341| January 29, 2015 Page 2 of 5

for class C felony intimidation. Finding that the trial court acted within its 

discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2012, Reese pled guilty to class C felony intimidation. The trial 

court sentenced him to five years, with two years executed and the remainder 

suspended to probation. 

[3] In August 2013, the State filed a petition to revoke Reese’s probation, citing 

marijuana use, a failure to answer reasonable questions from his probation 

officer, and a failure to attend scheduled meetings with his probation officer.

Reese admitted to the violations during a November 2013 revocation hearing. 

The trial court continued Reese’s probation, subject to the additional conditions 

that he complete sixty hours of community service, obtain an ADA evaluation,

1

and comply with all recommendations. 

[4] In February 2014, the State filed a second probation revocation petition against 

Reese, alleging that he tested positive for methamphetamine (“meth”), was not 

forthright about his drug use, and failed to begin his community service hours. 

 

1

 We note that the record does not specifically define the term “ADA.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1408-CR-341| January 29, 2015 Page 3 of 5

Two months later, the State filed an addendum alleging that Reese had again 

tested positive for meth. At his July 2014 probation revocation hearing, Reese 

admitted to the violations contained in both the petition and the addendum. 

The trial court issued an order revoking his probation and remanding him to the 

DOC for thirty of the thirty-six months of his suspended sentence. 

[5] Reese now appeals. Additional facts will be presented as necessary.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Reese maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to 

execute thirty months of his thirty-six-month suspended sentence after his 

second round of probation violations. Probation is a matter of grace left to the 

trial court’s sound 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 

probationer violates those conditions. Id. Proof of a single violation is 

sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 

828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. 

[7] Probation revocation is a two-step process, wherein the trial court first makes a 

factual determination as to whether the probationer violated the terms of his 

probation. Then, if a violation is found, the court determines whether the 

violation warrants revocation. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1408-CR-341| January 29, 2015 Page 4 of 5

[8] A trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable for 

an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. An abuse of discretion 

occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of 

the facts and circumstances before it. Id. 

[9] Here, Reese admitted to all the violations alleged in the State’s second 

revocation petition and the addendum to it. These include using and 

consuming meth, providing untruthful information to his probation officer, and 

failing to perform or even begin his sixty hours of community service. The only 

allegation for which he offered any explanation was his community service, 

claiming that he lacked the funds necessary to pay the $100 fee. 

[10] Because Reese admitted to the violations, the trial court was left to determine 

which of the following actions to take: (1) continue Reese’s probation, with or 

without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend his probationary 

period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; 

and/or (3) 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).

[11] As noted, this is Reese’s second probation revocation proceeding. During the 

hearing on the State’s first petition, Reese admitted to the violations, and the 

trial court opted to continue his probation with enlarged conditions, including 

sixty hours of community service and an ADA evaluation. In the two and a 

half months that followed, Reese tested positive for meth and failed to perform 

or even begin performance of his court-ordered community service. He was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 73A01-1408-CR-341| January 29, 2015 Page 5 of 5

untruthful with his probation officer concerning his drug use and continued to 

use meth, even though the second petition to revoke his probation was already 

pending. Again, he admitted to the allegations, and this time, the trial court 

imposed a different option within the statutory framework – execution of most 

but not all of his suspended term. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

[12] In sum, the trial court granted Reese leniency when it continued his probation 

after his first round of violations. Instead of responding positively to the grace 

afforded him, Reese continued to engage in prohibited conduct (taking drugs) 

and neglected to engage in positive conduct (serving his community). He has 

an extensive adult and juvenile criminal record and has repeatedly 

demonstrated that he is unwilling to comply with the terms of his probation and 

with the law in general. Simply put, these patterns of conduct do not portend 

success for him outside the confines of the DOC. Based on the foregoing, we 

conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in revoking Reese’s 

probation and remanding him to the DOC for thirty months of his remaining 

term. Accordingly, we affirm. 

[13] Affirmed. 

Friedlander, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.