Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 1 of 7

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

R. Patrick Magrath

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

John R. Millikan

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Dakota M. Probst,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 5, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2118

Appeal from the Dearborn 

Superior Court

The Honorable Sally A. 

McLaughlin, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

15D02-1809-F6-345, 15D02-1811-

F6-440, 15D02-1812-CM-865

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 2 of 7

[1] Dakota Probst pleaded guilty under three separate cause numbers to Level 6 

felony criminal confinement, Level 6 felony possession of methamphetamine, 

and Class A misdemeanor battery. The trial court sentenced him to an 

aggregate term of 1820 days in prison with 910 of those days suspended to 

probation. Probst contends on appeal that his aggregate sentence is

inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Raised by his grandparents, Probst dropped out of school in the ninth grade and 

then began working when he was sixteen years old. In May 2017, Probst was 

adjudicated a delinquent child for operating a vehicle without ever receiving a 

license and for the illegal taking of a wild animal, both misdemeanors if 

committed by an adult. Probst explained that this adjudication was the result of 

him driving another individual’s vehicle while his friend shot at a deer through 

a window of the vehicle.

[4] Probst turned eighteen on June 28, 2018 and became a daily methamphetamine 

user around this time, in addition to him already being a regular marijuana 

user. He continued to live with his grandparents, along with his girlfriend 

Roxann Boatman.

[5] On September 4, 2018, during a verbal argument, Boatman told Probst that she 

was leaving him. Probst followed her as she walked up to the bedroom that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 3 of 7

they shared and kicked down the bedroom door. He was “freaking out” and 

“started pushing [her] and choking [her].” Transcript at 60. She managed to get 

away and run downstairs and then out to her truck. Probst followed and 

grabbed the truck keys from her, telling her that she was not leaving. He

forcefully held her by the arms, struck her in the face, and pushed her into the 

side of her truck, causing a dent. During the altercation, he began choking her 

again and struck her multiple times. As she tried to get away from him, he bit 

her on the back of her shoulder and elsewhere. At some point, Boatman ended 

up on the ground, and Probst drove the truck closer to the house. Boatman 

then called her mother for help, telling her “if she didn’t come and get me, that 

I think he was going to kill me[.]” Id. at 61. Shortly thereafter, Dearborn 

County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Brian Weigel responded to the scene. As 

Deputy Weigel spoke with Boatman, Probst approached “angry and also 

yelling.” Id. at 74. Deputy Weigel opined that Probst was “acting as somebody 

using meth would act.” Id. Probst was arrested and charged under cause 

number 15D02-1809-F6-345 (Cause F6-345) with Level 6 felony criminal 

confinement, Level 6 felony strangulation, Class A misdemeanor battery, and 

Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. He was released on bond within a 

week.

[6] Probst continued to use methamphetamine daily upon his release. On 

November 15, 2018, he became angry with his new girlfriend, Kaitlyn Lack. 

When he began raising his voice and “kind of knocked [her] face”, Lack pushed 

him away from her. Id. at 78. Probst then grabbed her by the arms and bit her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 4 of 7

on the back of the shoulder. On December 3, 2018, the State charged Probst 

under cause number 15D02-1812-CM-865 (Cause CM-865) with Class A 

misdemeanor battery.

[7] Before Cause CM-865 was filed but while Probst was still out on bond under 

Cause F6-345, a vehicle in which Probst was a passenger was pulled over for a 

traffic stop on November 23, 2018. The officer smelled marijuana upon 

approaching the vehicle occupied by Probst and the driver. Subsequently, 

officers found marijuana and various Oxycodone pills in the vehicle. Probst 

also had Oxycodone and methamphetamine on his person. The State charged 

Probst under cause number 15D02-1811-F6-440 (Cause F6-440) with Level 6 

felony possession of methamphetamine, Class B misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. 

[8] On June 19, 2019, the State and Probst entered into a plea agreement regarding 

his three pending cases. Probst agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony criminal 

confinement under Cause F6-345, Level 6 felony possession of 

methamphetamine under Cause F6-440, and Class A misdemeanor battery 

under Cause CM-865. In exchange, the State dismissed the five remaining 

counts. Sentencing was left open.

[9] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on July 25, 2019 and took the matter 

under advisement. Thereafter, on August 12, 2019, the trial court sentenced 

Probst as follows: (1) 545 days under Cause F6-345, with no time suspended; 

(2) 365 days under Cause CM-865, with no time suspended and served 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 5 of 7

consecutive to Cause F6-345; and (3) 910 days under Cause F6-440, all time 

suspended and served consecutive to the two other causes. Thus, Probst 

essentially received an aggregate sentence of five years with two and one-half of 

those years suspended to probation.

Discussion & Decision

[10] Probst challenges the sentence imposed by the trial court as inappropriate. We 

may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the 

trial court’s decision, we find the sentence inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offense and the character of the offender. Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B). 

Indiana’s flexible sentencing scheme allows trial courts to tailor an appropriate 

sentence to the circumstances presented and the trial court’s judgment “should 

receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 

2008). The principal role of appellate review is to attempt to “leaven the 

outliers.” Id. at 1225. Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate at the 

end of the day turns on “our sense of culpability of the defendant, the severity 

of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to 

light in a given case.” Id. at 1224. Deference to the trial court “prevail[s] unless 

overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the 

offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the 

defendant’s character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples 

of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The 

burden is on the defendant to persuade us his sentence is inappropriate. 

Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 6 of 7

[11] For each of his Level 6 felony convictions, Probst faced a sentencing range of

six months to two and one-half years, with the advisory sentence being one 

year. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). He could be sentenced up to one year for 

the Class A misdemeanor. See I.C. § 35-50-3-2. Pursuant to I.C. § 35-50-1-2(e), 

the individual sentences were required to be served consecutively. Thus, the 

maximum aggregate sentence faced by Probst was six years and the minimum 

was two years. The trial court imposed five years and suspended half of that.

[12] With regard to the nature of the confinement and battery offenses, we observe 

that there were two separate victims. Probst acknowledges on appeal that the 

details of these crimes “depict scary scenarios” where he violently attacked two 

different girlfriends “with his hands and teeth.” Appellant’s Brief at 12 (emphasis 

supplied). We find that the attacks, committed only months apart, were 

particularly disturbing. Moreover, the battery and possession of 

methamphetamine offenses were committed within days of each other and 

while Probst was out of bond following his brutal attack of Boatman. We agree 

with the State that Probst’s offenses over a three-month period show a disregard 

for the law and an indifference to the potential consequences of his actions.

Further, Probst admitted that even after the most recent offense he continued to 

use methamphetamine daily until he was arrested in early March 2019, on the 

warrant issued under Cause CM-865 on December 3, 2018.

[13] Considering his character, we acknowledge that he was only eighteen at the 

time of each of his offenses and that he apologized to the victims and accepted 

responsibility. But Probst was not a typical eighteen-year old, as he had worked 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2118 | February 5, 2020 Page 7 of 7

for over two years as a laborer, having dropped out of high school at sixteen, 

and in a short time established a history of serious drug use and violent 

propensities. He also had a juvenile adjudication just prior to him turning 

seventeen which involved him unlawfully (and dangerously) operating a vehicle 

while his passenger shot at a deer out of the vehicle’s window. Probst is indeed 

in need of substance abuse treatment and anger management classes, but as the 

trial court determined, Probst has established himself to be a “risk to 

community safety and is best treated in a facility” and then on probation. 

Transcript at 90. 

[14] We cannot say that Probst’s aggregate five-year sentence, half of which is 

suspended to probation, is inappropriate in light of the nature of the three 

entirely separate offenses he committed and his troubling character.

[15] Judgment affirmed.

Robb, J. and Bradford, C.J., concur.