MEMORANDUM DECISION
Statement of the Case
[1] Raymond Gillham (“Gillham”) appeals the revocation of his probation, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation. Because there was sufficient evidence to support the revocation, we affirm the trial courts judgment.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Gillhams probation.
Facts
[3] In October 2019, Gillham pled guilty in this cause, 55D02-1806-CM-914 (“Cause CM-914”), to Class A misdemeanor false informing. The trial court imposed a 365-day sentence, with 144 days executed and the remaining 221 days suspended. The trial court also ordered Gillham to serve one year of probation. Gillhams probation was to begin after he completed his sentence in 55D03-1711-F6-2235 (“Cause F6-2235”), and he was required to report to probation in Cause CM-914 within two days of completing the Cause F6-2235 sentence.
1
Gillhams sentence in Cause F6-2235, which was imposed in November 2019 after he had violated probation in that cause, involved a direct commitment to the Salvation Army Rehab Center (“the Salvation Army”).
[4] On May 26, 2020, the State filed a notice of probation revocation, alleging that Gillham had failed to report to probation as directed. The trial court held a probation revocation hearing on July 21, 2020. During the hearing, the trial court took judicial notice of the November 21, 2019 probation sentencing order in Cause F6-2235. Under that order, Gillham was sentenced to 360 days, of which he had already served eighty-seven days and received good credit time for another eighty-seven days, leaving 186 days remaining to be served at the Salvation Army.
[5] Gillhams probation officer testified that Gillham had failed to report to probation within two days of completing his direct commitment at the Salvation Army in Cause F6-2235. The probation officer also testified that Gillham had never reported to the Salvation Army.
[6] Gillham challenged the probation revocation petition by making a procedural argument. He argued that the State had prematurely filed the notice of probation revocation on May 26, 2020 and that he had yet to violate probation on that date. Specifically, he argued that his Cause F6-2235 sentence required him to serve 186 days and would have ended on May 25, 2020, leaving him until May 27, 2020 to report to probation.
[7] The trial court rejected Gillhams argument, concluding that his Cause F6-2235 sentence would have been completed at the time the State filed the probation violation notice. The trial court explained that Gillham would have received credit time for his 186-day direct commitment to the Salvation Army, which was imposed on November 21, 2019. With the applicable ninety-three days of credit time, Gillhams Cause F6-2235 sentence would have been completed on February 22, 2020. The trial court determined that Gillham had violated probation by “fail[ing] to report to probation within two days of February 22nd, 2020[.]” (Tr. 14). The trial court terminated Gillhams probation as unsuccessful and ordered him to serve 221 days at the county jail. Gillham now appeals.
Decision
[8] Gillham argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. He, therefore, seeks to have this Court reverse the trial courts order revoking his probation and placing him in the county jail.
[9] “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. Id. See also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). Indeed, violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). The State must prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(f).
[10] We review a trial courts probation violation determination for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Id. When reviewing a trial courts determination that a probation violation has occurred, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, and we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.
[11] On appeal, Gillham again argues that the State prematurely filed the notice of probation revocation, contending that his Cause F6-2235 sentence would not have been completed until May 25, 2020. Gillhams argument is nothing more than a reiteration of his sufficiency argument to the trial court, which was correctly rejected by the trial court. See Ind. Code § 35-50-6-3.1(b) (“A person assigned to Class A earns one (1) day of good time credit for each day the person is imprisoned for a crime[.]”). See also Hale v. State, 992 N.E.2d 848, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (“Having determined that Hales work release (as well as his upcoming home detention) term was a direct placement in community corrections, it follows that he is entitled to good time credit.”) Because the evidence was sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Gillham violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to probation as directed, we affirm the trial courts revocation of his probation.
[12] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In Cause F6-2235, Gillham was convicted of Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person.
Pyle, Judge.
Vaidik, J., and Brown, J., concur.