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:

ANTHONY S. CHURCHWARD GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Attorney General of Indiana

Fort Wayne, Indiana

KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

DANIEL RODGERS-CONWELL, JR., )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 02A04-1210-CR-546

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Judge

Cause No. 02D04-1006-FC-121

May 31, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BROWN, Judge
2

Daniel Rodgers-Conwell, Jr., appeals the revocation of his probation for his failure 

to maintain good behavior. Rodgers-Conwell raises one issue, which we revise and 

restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to support the revocation of his probation. 

We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 10, 2010, the State charged Rodgers-Conwell with battery as a class C 

felony, domestic battery as a class D felony, and criminal recklessness as a class D 

felony. In September 2010, Rodgers-Conwell pled guilty to battery as a class C felony. 

On October 4, 2010, the court sentenced Rodgers-Conwell to six years with two years 

suspended to probation, and the State dismissed the remaining charges. The order of 

probation stated that Rodgers-Conwell must behave well. 

On July 28, 2012, Fort Wayne Police Officer Stephen Ealing was dispatched to a 

location and saw Rodgers-Conwell walking down the street and trying to catch up to 

Shakenya McWilliams, who appeared to be in distress, was crying, and was wearing dirty 

and torn clothes. Officer Ealing asked Rodgers-Conwell what was going on, and 

Rodgers-Conwell shouted that McWilliams fell down and she needs some help while

McWilliams stood behind Rodgers-Conwell and “just looked at [Officer Ealing] and 

shook her head no, that that was not accurate what happened.” Transcript at 13. 

Officer Ealing asked Rodgers-Conwell to put his hands behind his back, and 

Rodgers-Conwell “got kind of angry, stand-off-ish, took what could be described as a 

pre-attack indicator, he clenched his fist, took a big deep breath, [and] started walking 

towards” Officer Ealing. Id. Officer Ealing took his Taser out of its holster, pointed it at 
3

Rodgers-Conwell, and ordered him to the ground. After a minute or two, RodgersConwell eventually followed Officer Ealing’s order. 

Officer Ealing called for backup, and Officer Mark Bell arrived. Officer Bell 

placed Rodgers-Conwell in handcuffs and into Officer Ealing’s vehicle. Officer Bell 

observed that Rodgers-Conwell’s demeanor was “very hostile” and that he showed signs 

of intoxication such as red, watery eyes and his breath smelled of alcohol. Id. at 26.

Officer Ealing observed that McWilliams had some swelling to her face, her lower 

lip was cut open and bleeding, and her clothes were very dirty. McWilliams was also 

crying and “absolutely fearful for being around” Rodgers-Conwell. Id. at 14. 

McWilliams told Officer Ealing that she was driving down the road with RodgersConwell, that he asked to use her phone, and that he punched her in the face when she 

said no. McWilliams also said that Rodgers-Conwell turned the car off while the vehicle 

was in motion and choked her with his arm causing her to be unable to breathe. 

According to McWilliams’s statements, she attempted to exit the vehicle, but RodgersConwell grabbed her by her pants and ended up pulling her back into the vehicle with 

such force that it ripped her underwear into three pieces. McWilliams managed to 

escape, but Rodgers-Conwell chased her down, threw her to the ground, and punched her 

while she was on the ground. McWilliams told Officer Ealing that she was experiencing 

some cramping and that she was twenty weeks pregnant with Rodgers-Conwell’s child. 

Officer Ealing looked in the vehicle and saw one section of McWilliams’s underwear 

hanging from the steering wheel, another section of her underwear on the passenger floor, 
4

and her “hair piece was laying in the center of the car between the seats like on the center 

console.” Id. at 18. 

Officer Kenneth Johnson also arrived on the scene and noticed when McWilliams 

attempted to start her vehicle that “[t]he ignition part for the key was still in the on 

position” which was unusual because “[w]hen a vehicle is stopped the steering wheel 

tends to be locked and the ignition is usually in the off position and none of those were in 

that position.” Id. at 28-29. Officer Johnson attempted to start the vehicle which took 

approximately thirty minutes. 

Rodgers-Conwell was arrested for battery resulting in bodily injury to a pregnant 

woman as a class C felony and strangulation as a class D felony. In August 2012, the 

State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging that Rodgers-Conwell “[d]id not 

maintain good behavior. Committed the offense of count I, Battery Resulting in Bodily 

Injury to a Pregnant Woman, Class C Felony and count II, Strangulation, Class D Felony, 

cause number 02D05-1208-FC-239.” Appellant’s Appendix at 42. 

On October 18, 2012, the court held a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke 

probation. Officer Ealing, Officer Bell, and Officer Johnson testified to the foregoing 

facts. Rodgers-Conwell objected to Officer Ealing testifying as to McWilliams’s

statements on hearsay grounds, and the court overruled the objection. The State also 

introduced photographs of McWilliams’s injuries, her dirty clothes, and her underwear in 

the vehicle. After the State rested, Rodgers-Conwell moved for a directed finding, which 

the court denied.
5

Rodgers-Conwell introduced and the court admitted a notarized sworn statement 

from McWilliams which stated in part that she and Rodgers-Conwell were having a 

disagreement on July 28, 2012, but that “at no time did [she] ever feel in jeopardy of 

[her] safety as a result of this incident.” Defendant’s Exhibit A. Rodgers-Conwell 

testified that McWilliams told him that she had received a call saying that he was 

cheating on her, that they started arguing, and that McWilliams stopped the car “real fast” 

and bit her lip. Transcript at 38. Rodgers-Conwell denied striking McWilliams in any 

way. Rodgers-Conwell also testified that McWilliams attempted to run, then slipped and 

fell, and that the police officer put McWilliams’s panties on the steering wheel. During 

rebuttal, Officers Ealing, Johnson, and Bell, testified that they did not place the 

underwear on the steering wheel. 

The court found that Rodgers-Conwell violated the terms and conditions of 

probation by not maintaining good behavior and ordered that Rodgers-Conwell serve two 

years in the Department of Correction. 

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

The issue is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the revocation of 

Rodgers-Conwell’s probation. Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, 

not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 

1112 (Ind. 2012). A trial court’s probation decision is subject to review for abuse of 

discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the 

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. A probation hearing is civil in nature 

and the State need prove the alleged violations by only a preponderance of the evidence. 
6

Id. We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the 

trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. If 

there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that 

a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke it. 

Id. The violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. 

Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). 

DISCUSSION

A person’s probation may be revoked if “the person has violated a condition of 

probation during the probationary period.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1). In order to 

obtain a revocation of probation, “the state must prove the violation by a preponderance 

of the evidence.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). “In proving that a defendant has violated the 

condition of ‘good behavior,’ the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the defendant has engaged in unlawful activity.” Justice v. State, 550 N.E.2d 809, 

810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990). “[I]t is always a condition of probation that a probationer not 

commit an additional crime.” Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995), reh’g

denied.

Rodgers-Conwell argues that the evidence is insufficient and points to his 

testimony and the notarized statement from McWilliams which stated that he never 

threatened her physically, verbally, or emotionally on July 28, 2012. Rodgers-Conwell 

does not argue that Officer Ealing’s testimony regarding McWilliams’s statements was 

inadmissible, but argues that the “issue is whether this hearsay testimony which was the 

sole evidence upon which the trial court based its findings that [he] violated his probation 
7

was sufficient.” Appellant’s Brief at 10-11. Rodgers-Conwell also contends that “[t]he 

State may argue that the photographs provided sufficient corroboration; however, the 

injuries depicted in the photographs were all explained by Mr. Rodgers-Conwell during 

his testimony.” Id. at 11. The State argues that the admissible hearsay evidence and 

photographs provided sufficient evidence from which the trial court could reasonably 

conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that Rodgers-Conwell violated the terms of 

his probation because he did not maintain good behavior. 

Rodgers-Conwell’s argument asks us to reweigh the evidence, which we will not 

do. Based upon the record, including the evidence that Rodgers-Conwell punched 

McWilliams in the face, choked her, pulled her back into the vehicle, threw her to the 

ground, and punched her further, we conclude that the State presented substantial 

evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that Rodgers-Conwell 

violated his probation by not maintaining good behavior. See, e.g., Whatley v. State, 

847 N.E.2d 1007, 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (refusing to reweigh the evidence, although 

the defendant offered contrary evidence to that submitted in support of revocation, and 

affirming the trial court’s decision to revoke the defendant’s probation). 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s revocation of RodgersConwell’s probation.

Affirmed.

RILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.