Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2400 | June 24, 2019 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

Jennifer A. Joas

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ian McLean

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Regina A. Beard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 24, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-CR-2400

Appeal from the Ripley Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Darrell M. Auxier, 

Special Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

69C01-1209-FB-24

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Regina Beard (“Beard”) appeals the Ripley Superior Court’s revocation of her 

probation, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2400 | June 24, 2019 Page 2 of 5

serve four years of the balance of her previously suspended sentence in the 

Department of Correction (“DOC”).

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In March of 2014, Beard pleaded guilty to Class B felony conspiracy to 

manufacture methamphetamine. She was ordered to serve eleven years in the 

DOC with eight years suspended to probation. After serving her executed time, 

Beard began probation on November 25, 2015. Less than one year later, the 

State filed a petition to revoke her probation after she tested positive for 

amphetamine and methamphetamine on October 17, 2016. Appellant’s App. p. 

78. Beard again tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in 

February 2017. Id. at 86. She admitted she had violated her probation, and the 

court revoked one year of her previously suspended eight-year sentence on June 

2, 2017. Id. at 91. 

[4] Beard was released on probation on September 14, 2017. She agreed to 

participate in Moral Reconation Therapy (“MRT”) and signed an agreement 

that her probation could be revoked if she missed two MRT sessions without 

excuse. Id. at 95. She immediately missed MRT sessions on October 5 and 10, 

2017. Beard met with a probation officer on October 17, who informed her that 

her probation would likely be revoked due to her two unexplained absences 

from her MRT sessions. Tr. p. 7. Beard then failed to attend a third MRT 

session that same day and failed to check in with her probation officer for six 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2400 | June 24, 2019 Page 3 of 5

months. Id. An arrest warrant was issued on October 30, 2017. Appellant’s 

App. pp. 9, 98. 

[5] Beard admitted to violating her probation on August 7, 2018. Tr. p. 4. The trial 

court revoked four years of the balance of her previously suspended sentence 

and recommended a Therapeutic Community and Purposeful Incarceration. Id. 

at 10; Appellant’s App. p. 100 The trial court indicated it would modify Beard’s 

sentence if she successfully completed the Purposeful Incarceration program 

without conduct violations. Tr. p. 10. Beard now appeals.

Discussion

[6] Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial court’s 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 the conditions. Id. Beard admitted 

she violated her probation. Therefore, the trial court had the option of imposing 

one of the following sanctions: (1) continue Beard on probation, with or 

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

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

(3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time 

of initial sentencing. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

[7] A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed according to the abuse of 

discretion standard. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 185. An abuse of discretion occurs if 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2400 | June 24, 2019 Page 4 of 5

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

circumstances before the court. Id. at 188.

[8] Beard argues the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to serve 

four years of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC. Beard argues inhome monitoring is sufficient to ensure her attendance at MRT sessions, and 

that if incarceration is appropriate, a sentence between one and four years is 

more appropriate because missing MRT sessions is a less egregious violation 

than the use of drugs or a new criminal offense. Tr. p. 8; Appellant’s Br. at 10. 

[9] It is well within the trial court’s discretion to revoke Beard’s probation and 

order her to execute a portion of her sentence. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). A 

court may revoke probation after a single violation; this is Beard’s second. 

Beard tested positive for drug use less than a year into her probation and tested 

positive again three months later. Beard then violated her probation by failing 

to report to MRT sessions a mere six weeks after she was released from 

incarceration after her first probation violation. She also failed to report to her 

probation officer for six months because she did not want to “face the music.” 

Tr. p. 7. Beard has shown that less restrictive monitoring is insufficient to 

ensure her compliance. The court’s decision to revoke four years of the balance 

of Beard’s previously suspended sentence is not an unwarranted response to the 

violations she committed, especially given the court’s willingness to consider a 

modification to her sentence upon completion of the Purposeful Incarceration 

program. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2400 | June 24, 2019 Page 5 of 5

Conclusion

[10] For all of these reasons, we conclude that the trial court acted within its 

discretion when it revoked Beard’s probation and ordered her to serve four 

years of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC. 

[11] Affirmed. 

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.