Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 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

Leanna Weissmann

Lawrenceburg, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Trevor Nash Tice,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 25, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A05-1701-CR-171

Appeal from the Dearborn Circuit 

Court

The Honorable James D. 

Humphrey, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

15C01-1209-FB-45

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Statement of the Case

[1] While on probation for child molesting as a Class B felony, Trevor Tice 

(“Tice”), violated the terms of his probation by stealing equipment from his 

employer. As a result of this violation, which Tice admitted, the trial court 

ordered him to serve his entire previously suspended sentence in the 

Department of Correction (“DOC”), with credit for time served. Tice argues 

that the trial court abused its discretion because Tice had a job and had enrolled 

in college. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we affirm. 

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Tice 

to serve his entire previously suspended sentence after he violated 

probation by committing another crime.

Facts

[3] In 2013, a jury convicted Tice of Class B felony child molesting. The trial court 

sentenced him to the DOC for twelve (12) years, with five (5) years suspended 

and five (5) years on probation. In December 2015, Tice began to serve his 

probation. Three months later, in March 2016, Tice violated his probation by 

failing to report a change of address to the probation department. Tice 

admitted the violation, and the trial court revoked thirty days of his probation 

as a sanction.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 3 of 4

[4] In October 2016, Tice violated his probation a second time when he committed 

Level 6 felony theft by stealing a safe and two log splitters from his employer, 

Orsheln Farm and Home. The theft was captured on videotape, and Tice 

admitted the violation at his revocation hearing in December 2016. 

[5] Following the presentation of evidence at the revocation hearing, the trial court 

noted that Tice was on probation for a very serious conviction and that this was 

his second violation. The court further noted that Tice had received a 

“significant break in [the] original sentence, with having five years suspended to 

probation.” (Tr. Vol. II at 27). The trial court also pointed out that Tice had 

already had one violation with only a thirty-day sanction. The trial court 

concluded the hearing by ordering Tice to serve his “entire previously 

suspended sentence of four (4) years and three hundred thirty-five days (335).” 

(Tr. Vol. II at 27). Tice appeals.

Decision

[6] Probation is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a 

right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Once a trial court 

has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how 

to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878 

N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). If this discretion were not given to trial courts and 

sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial courts might be less 

inclined to order probation. Id. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decision 

for a probation violation is reviewable for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A05-1701-CR-171 | May 25, 2017 Page 4 of 4

of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic 

and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id. If a trial court finds that a person 

has violated his probation before termination of the probationary period, the 

court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at 

the time of the initial sentencing. IND. CODE § 35-38-2-3.

[7] Here, Tice does not dispute the fact that he violated the terms of his probation. 

Rather, while acknowledging that “reversals on probation revocations are rare,” 

Tice argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his 

entire previously suspended sentence because he “had a job waiting and had 

enrolled in college.” (Tice’s Br. at 7). However, at the sentencing hearing, the 

trial court pointed out that Tice had received a “significant break” when he was 

sentenced to twelve years with five years suspended to probation for his Class B 

felony conviction. (Tr. Vol. II 27). The trial court also pointed out that Tice 

had already had one probation violation with only a 30-day sanction. The trial 

court’s decision to deny Tice yet another chance is amply supported by the 

record and not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances 

before the court. The trial court was well within its discretion when it ordered 

Tice to serve his entire previously suspended sentence.

[8] Affirmed.

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