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

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Richard C. Webster

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jimmy Scott Huntington,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 27, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

15A01-1412-CR-00544

Appeal from the Dearborn Superior 

Court

The Honorable Sally A. Blankenship,

Judge

Case No. 15D02-1105-FD-202

Crone, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Jimmy Scott Huntington appeals the trial court’s judgment that he serve his 

previously suspended three-year sentence for violating his probation. The 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 5
dispositive issue presented for our review is whether the trial court abused its 

discretion. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the summer of 2011, Huntington was charged with and pled guilty to class D 

felony failure to comply with the sex and violent offender registration 

requirements. He was sentenced to three years suspended to supervised 

probation to be served consecutive to a probation violation sentence imposed in 

another case. One of the probation terms was that Huntington would not 

commit a criminal act. 

[3] In September 2014, the Dearborn County Probation Department alleged that 

Huntington violated the terms of his probation by committing the crime of 

operating a vehicle while intoxicated. At the dispositional hearing, Huntington 

admitted to the violation. The trial court found that Huntington violated his 

probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended three-year 

sentence. This appeal ensued. 

Discussion and Decision

[4] Huntington argues that revoking his entire three-year sentence was an abuse of 

discretion. Specifically, he argues that revoking just one year of his sentence 

would adequately punish him for his violation and would take into account his 

willingness to reform. “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court 

discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Runyon v. 

State, 939 N.E.2d 613, 618 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 5
188 (Ind. 2007)). “Revocation of an individual’s probation deprives the 

individual ‘not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only 

of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole 

restrictions.’” Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 620 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) 

(quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972)). “Probation is a criminal 

sanction whereby a defendant specifically agrees to accept conditions upon his 

behavior in lieu of imprisonment.” Hurd v. State, 9 N.E.3d 720, 726 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014). “These restrictions are designed to ensure that the probation serves 

as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the public is not harmed by a 

probationer living within the community.” Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244, 

1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied, (2003).

[5] A probation revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the alleged violation need 

be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. Carpenter v. State, 999 

N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Violation of a single condition of 

probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830

(Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “The decision to revoke probation is within the sole 

discretion of the trial court.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). 

[6] “A trial court’s probation decision is subject to appellate review for abuse of 

discretion ‘where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances.”’ Runyon, 939 N.E.2d at 618 (quoting Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 

188. Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, a 

court may either continue him on probation, with or without enlarging the 

conditions, extend his probation for not more than one year beyond the original 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 5
probationary period, or order execution of the initial sentence that was 

suspended. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(j). The imposition of an entire suspended 

sentence is within the trial court’s discretion. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 

952, 957-58 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. 

[7] Huntington admitted that he committed the offense of operating a vehicle while 

intoxicated in direct violation of the terms of his probation. This admission 

alone would support the imposition of his suspended sentence. Moreover, 

Huntington’s history shows that he is a poor candidate for continuing

probation. He was placed on probation several times in the past and had 

multiple violations. In one case, Huntington received a fifteen-year sentence 

with ten years suspended. Because of his multiple probation violations, 

Huntington spent the entire suspended portion of his sentence incarcerated in 

the Department of Correction. The object of probationary terms and conditions 

is to ensure that probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation. If a 

probationer repeatedly violates probation terms, as is the case with Huntington, 

the very purpose of probation is defeated. 

[8] Further, Huntington reported that he consumed alcohol daily until he passed

out, but claimed that it was not apparent that he had an alcohol abuse problem

until his arrest for operating while intoxicated. Even if it were plausible that 

Huntington did not recognize drinking to unconsciousness was a problem until 

his arrest, it does not change the fact that he was drinking every day in direct 

violation of his probation. Huntington has been afforded numerous 

opportunities to pay his debts to society via probation in lieu of imprisonment. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Through his own actions, he has squandered those opportunities and earned the 

resulting sentence revocations.

[9] The foregoing facts demonstrate Huntington’s disregard for court orders and 

the probation system. The trial court had ample basis for its decision to order 

that Huntington serve his entire suspended sentence and did not abuse its 

discretion. 

[10] Affirmed.

Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1412-CR-00544 | July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 5