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:

CARA SCHAEFER WIENEKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Special Assistant to the State Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana RYAN D. JOHANNINGSMEIER

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

WARREN E. LARGE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 84A01-1303-CR-133

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE VIGO SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable David R. Bolk, Judge

Cause No. 84D03-1008-FC-2873

October 1, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge
2

Case Summary and Issue

Warren Large pleaded guilty in 2011 to one count of Class C felony child 

molesting and was sentenced to four years, three executed and one suspended to 

probation. In 2013, he was found to have violated his probation and was ordered to serve 

the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence. Large now appeals, raising the sole 

issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Large for the probation 

violation. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Large was accused in 2010 of child molesting with respect to a six-year-old child 

related to his wife. He pleaded guilty to child molesting as a Class C felony, and 

pursuant to the terms of the plea, was sentenced to the Department of Correction for four 

years, with three years to be executed and one year to be suspended to formal probation, 

the conditions of which included that he report to the probation office on or before the 

first day of each month and have no contact with children under the age of sixteen.

Large was released to probation in early 2012. On January 29, 2013, a notice of 

probation violation was filed alleging that Large had failed to report to the probation 

office as ordered in December and had contact with a child under sixteen years of age. 

Large was arrested on January 31, 2013, and held in jail until the fact-finding hearing on 

February 28, 2013. Prior to the start of the hearing, counsel conferred with the trial court, 

after which the trial court stated:

My understanding is that instead of having a probation violation hearing 

today Mr. Large, you’re gonna admit that you violated the terms of your 

probation; . . . you’re gonna be sentenced to time served on this [probation 

violation]; your probation will be enlarged for one (1) year, extended for 

one (1) year; . . . [t]hat you’re gonna abide by all of the additional terms of 
3

probation that are contained in the Indiana Recommended Special 

Probation Conditions for Adult Sex Offenders . . . .

Transcript at 4-5. Large concurred that was the agreement that had been reached. The 

trial court then asked Large the following questions:

Court: . . . So Mr. Large, do you admit or deny that you violated the 

terms of your probation?

Large: I admit, I did.

Court: And specifically the allegation was that you had failed to 

report, and that you had unsupervised contact with someone 

under sixteen (16).

Large: No.

Court: You did not?

Large: I did not your Honor, under sixteen (16). I violated my 

probation, only had one (1) month to go, but I have not seen 

anyone under sixteen (16) . . . .

Id. at 5-6. The trial court then instructed the State to call its first witness.

Anthony Heber, Large’s probation officer, testified that Large failed to report in 

December 2012 and January 2013, and that he had not contacted the probation office 

between the date of his last missed appointment and his arrest. Edith Wentz, manager at 

a motel where Large had been staying prior to his arrest, testified that she witnessed an 

incident in the motel’s reception area where Large spoke to the son of the motel’s 

maintenance man, whom she knew to be only fifteen years old. Large asked the boy if he 

still lived down the road, and Wentz told Large not to talk to the boy and to leave the 

area. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court stated:

. . . I’m gonna find that Mr. Large violated the terms of his probation. I 

think it’s, may be a closer call on the, whether or not it’s an unsupervised 

contact with an under sixteen (16) year old, but he clearly violated by not 

contacting and communicating with his probation officer for two (2) 

consecutive months. I’m finding that he’s violated the terms of his 

probation. I’ll just find it on that issue solely, to make the record clear.
4

Id. at 14. The State recommended revocation of Large’s probation and execution of the 

entirety of his previously-suspended sentence. Large’s counsel requested that he be 

returned to probation: “He only missed two (2) [appointments]. Had we not had the 

accusations of contact with a child under the age of sixteen (16), I don’t think we would 

have been here, and Mr. Large would be restored to probation after time served in jail.” 

Id. at 15. The trial court ordered Large to serve the balance of his one-year suspended 

sentence, with credit for time served since his arrest on the probation violation. Large 

now appeals this sentence.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

“Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a 

criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Once 

a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation, it has considerable leeway in 

deciding how to proceed. 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. We therefore review a trial court’s sentencing 

decision in a probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Alford v. State, 

965 N.E.2d 133, 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs 

where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.”

Id. If a defendant is found to have violated his or her probation, a trial court may (1) 

continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than 

one year beyond the original period; and/or (3) order all or part of a previously suspended 

sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). 
5

II. Sanction for Probation Violation

Large does not challenge the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation; he 

challenges only the sentence the trial court imposed. His argument is essentially that he 

received a more severe sentence for putting the State to its proof. When all parties 

thought Large was going to admit to the two alleged violations, the recommended 

sanction was an extended probationary period; when Large would not admit he had 

violated the no-contact condition of his probation and there was instead an evidentiary 

hearing, at the conclusion of which the trial court found specifically a violation only for 

failure to report, he received a stiffer sanction. Large argues this was an abuse of the trial 

court’s discretion.

The trial court specifically found that Large had violated only the reporting 

condition of his probation,1 but the evidence also supports a finding that Large had 

contact with a person under the age of sixteen. The trial court alluded to that, but called it 

a “closer call” as to whether it was an “unsupervised contact.” Tr. at 14. The 

probationary condition at issue, however, was that Large would have “NO CONTACT 

with children under the age of 16 years,” unsupervised or otherwise. Appellant’s 

Appendix at 33. Large offered no explanation for his failure to report to his probation 

officer. In fact, he stated that he knew he only had one month to go and he was “not quite 

sure why [he] didn’t report to probation.” Tr. at 16. Large was not “penalized for 

refusing to tell what he believed was a lie under oath.” Brief of the Appellant at 5. The 

 

1

 Large and the State disagree about whether Large admitted to violating this condition of his probation. 

He generally admitted to violating the terms of his probation, but then backtracked only on the no-contact provision 

when the trial court specified the allegations to which he was admitting. We still consider his original statement an 

admission that he violated the reporting condition. Regardless, the State presented evidence supporting both 

allegations.
6

trial court heard the State’s evidence and Large’s explanation or lack thereof for his 

actions, and determined that serving his previously-suspended sentence was the 

appropriate sanction for his conduct. We decline to find the trial court’s decision to 

require Large to serve his one-year suspended sentence to be an abuse of discretion. 

Conclusion

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Large serve his 

previously-suspended sentence for violating the terms of his probation. The judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

RILEY, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.