Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 1 of 6

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

Jennifer A. Joas

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Josiah J. Swinney

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kyle Goddard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 23, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-1205

Appeal from the Decatur Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Timothy B. Day,

Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

16C01-1901-F6-5

16C01-1901-F6-28

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary

[1] Kyle Goddard was sentenced, under two different cause numbers, to an 

aggregate 1080-day sentence after he pled guilty to and was convicted of Level 6 

felony possession of methamphetamine, Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic 

drug, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court 

ordered that 850 days of Goddard’s sentence be suspended to probation. 

While Goddard was serving his suspended sentence, the State alleged that 

Goddard had violated the terms of his probation by failing to complete a courtordered drug-treatment program, committing two new criminal offenses, 

consuming illegal drugs, and failing to report to probation. Goddard 

subsequently admitted, and the trial court found, that he had violated the terms 

of his probation. The trial court then revoked Goddard’s 850-day suspended 

sentence and ordered that Goddard serve the entire sentence in the Department 

of Correction (“DOC”). On appeal, Goddard contends that the trial court 

abused its discretion by revoking his 850-day suspended sentence and ordering 

him to serve the full 850 days in the DOC. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 30, 2019, Goddard pled guilty under cause number 16C01-1901-F6-5 

(“Cause No. F6-5”) to Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine and 

Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The trial court imposed an 

aggregate 540-day sentence with 536 days suspended to probation. The same 

day, Goddard pled guilty under cause number 16C01-1901-F6-28 (“Cause No. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 3 of 6

F6-28”) to Level 6 felony possession of a narcotic drug. The trial court imposed 

a 540-day sentence with 314 days suspended to probation. The trial court 

ordered that the sentence for F6-28 was to be served consecutively to the 

sentence imposed in Cause No. F6-5. 

[3] As conditions of his probation, Goddard was ordered, inter alia, to: not commit 

any criminal acts, refrain from consuming illegal substances, enroll in and 

successfully complete a court-ordered substance-abuse treatment program, and 

report to his probation officer as directed. On July 2, 2019, the State filed two 

petitions to revoke Goddard’s probation, alleging that Goddard had violated 

the terms of his probation by failing to complete the court-ordered substanceabuse treatment program, committing two new criminal acts, consuming illegal 

drugs, and failing to report to probation as directed. 

[4] On June 9, 2020, Goddard admitted, and the trial court found, that he had 

violated the terms of his probation. The trial court revoked Goddard’s 850-day 

suspended sentence and ordered that Goddard serve the entire sentence in the 

DOC. In doing so, the trial court recommended that Goddard be placed in a 

purposeful-incarceration program and indicated that it would consider a 

petition for a sentence modification upon completion of the program.

Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 4 of 6

[5] Goddard appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. “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).

The trial court determines the conditions of probation and may 

revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court 

has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than 

incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in 

deciding how to proceed. 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. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing 

decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse 

of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the 

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

circumstances.

Id. (internal citations omitted). In challenging the revocation of his probation, 

Goddard argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his entire 

850-day suspended sentence. Specifically, he argues that the trial court should 

have imposed a more lenient sentence in light of his addiction issues and his 

then-unborn child’s diagnoses with a fatal disease and short life expectancy.

[6] The record reveals that Goddard committed numerous violations of the terms 

of his probation. About two months into his probation, Goddard made the 

unilateral decision to quit his court-ordered treatment at Todd’s Transitional 

Housing after having used heroin throughout his treatment period. A few 

weeks later, on July 7, 2019, Goddard was charged with Level 4 felony burglary 

and Level 6 felony residential entry for acts which allegedly occurred on July 4, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 5 of 6

2019. Goddard also failed a drug screen at the end of July and later failed to 

report to probation for about three months.

[7] The record further reveals that the trial court considered Goddard’s requests for 

leniency due to his addiction issues and his then-unborn child’s diagnosis and 

short life expectancy. The trial court considered Goddard’s request to be placed 

on home detention but heard evidence that home detention might not be a 

possibility at the time of sentencing. In sentencing Goddard, the trial court 

indicated that it was not “unsympathetic” to Goddard’s position, recommended 

that Goddard be assigned to the purposeful incarceration program aimed at 

treating addiction, and indicated that it would consider a petition for sentence 

modification upon Goddard’s successful completion of the program. Tr. Vol. II 

p. 22. 

[8] As the State points out, the trial court initially granted Goddard leniency and 

the opportunity for treatment. Goddard, however, failed to take advantage of 

the treatment opportunities provided to him while he was on probation. Based 

on the facts before us, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion by revoking Goddard’s 850-day suspended sentence. See Sanders v. 

State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 957–58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (providing that the trial 

court “had ample basis for its decision to order” Sanders to serve her suspended 

sentence when the evidence established that Sanders had admitted several 

probation violations, including that she had (1) committed new criminal 

offenses, (2) tested positive for drugs, and (3) failed to appear for an 

appointment with her probation officer).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1205 | November 23, 2020 Page 6 of 6

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

Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.