Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Samantha M. Sumcad

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dacota Hughes,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

April 20, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2285

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D03-1609-F3-2644

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary

[1] Dacota Hughes (“Hughes”) appeals an order of the trial court that revoked his 

probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended 

sentence. He presents the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion 

when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Hughes pled guilty to attempted robbery as a Level 5 felony. He was sentenced 

to six years, with three of those years executed and three suspended to 

probation. As ordered, on January 4, 2019, Hughes was released and placed on

probation. He attended his first probation meeting but thereafter failed to 

appear. Based upon this violation, the State filed a petition to revoke.

[3] The trial court conducted a hearing on this petition and found Hughes in 

violation and revoked his probation. The court ordered Hughes to serve the 

suspended portion of his sentence. Hughes now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Probation may be revoked where: (1) the person violated a condition of the 

probation during the probationary period; and (2) the petition to revoke 

probation was filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of one 

year after termination of probation or forty-five days after the state receives 

notification. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). Hughes does not challenge the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 3 of 4

timing of the State’s petition to revoke; rather, he contends that the trial court 

abused its discretion by ordering that he serve the balance of his suspended 

sentence.

[5] Where the court finds a person has violated a condition of probation, the court 

may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or 

enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary period for not 

more than (1) year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order the 

execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial 

sentencing. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h).

1

 Trial courts enjoy broad discretion in 

adjudicating a probation violation. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 

2007). We review that decision only for an abuse of discretion, which occurs 

when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances. Id. It is well within the trial court’s discretion to determine the 

conditions of probation and revoke it if the conditions are violated. Id. When a 

trial court exercises its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, 

the judge has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. Id. 

[6] Hughes violated a condition of his probation soon after it began by failing to 

attend his meetings with the probation officer. Moreover, Hughes has a history 

of violating probation. In 2010, Hughes was convicted of intimidation and 

criminal mischief and was sentenced to one and one-half years on probation.

1 Unlike a juvenile justice matter, there is no requirement upon the judge to consider the least restrictive 

placement.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2285 | April 20, 2020 Page 4 of 4

In that case, Hughes violated his probation, served sixty-four days in jail, and 

was then placed back on probation, which he later violated a second time. In 

his adult life, Hughes has been placed on probation five separate times and has 

incurred numerous violations. Ultimately, in the bulk of these placements, 

Hughes completed his sentence without satisfactorily completing the terms of 

his probation.

[7] Hughes has a history of probation violations. He has repeatedly demonstrated 

his contempt for the grace bestowed upon him by the court. Here, he has failed 

once again to successfully comply with the terms of his probation. We cannot 

say that the trial court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the 

facts and circumstances. To the contrary, the trial court acted well within its 

discretion to order Hughes to serve the remainder of his previously suspended 

sentence.

[8] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.