MEMORANDUM DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Jesse Johns (Johns), appeals the trial courts revocation of his probation and the imposition of his previously-suspended sentence.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Johns presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On February 8, 2019, Johns pleaded guilty to a Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury. Following the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Johns to three years at the Department of Correction (DOC), all suspended to probation. Among the special conditions for his supervised probation, Johns was to complete a substance abuse evaluation.
[5] Contrary to the standard conditions of his probation agreement, Johns failed to submit to drug screens on four occasions and he also tested positive for THC on January 2, 2020, February 18, 2020, and June 22, 2020. While these issues of noncompliance were addressed administratively through the probation department sanction process, Johns nevertheless tested positive for THC again on July 23, 2020, and for THC and methamphetamine on August 20, 2020. On August 20, 2020, the probation department also received a report from Aspire, a drug treatment facility, indicating that Johns’ progress in the substance abuse treatment program was poor due to lack of attendance.
[6] On August 26, 2020, a notice of probation violation was filed in Marion County. On September 25, 2020, an amended notice of probation violation was filed, alleging that Johns had failed to maintain a verifiable residence, comply with his substance abuse evaluation and to follow the recommendations, and maintain contact with the probation department, as directed.
[7] On September 25, 2020, after Johns did not appear at the probation revocation hearing. A warrant was issued for his arrest, and he was detained on October 8, 2020. On October 9, 2020, a second amended notice of probation violation was filed, further alleging that Johns had violated his probation by accumulating two new offenses of resisting law enforcement. On December 22, 2020, at the probation revocation hearing, Johns admitted to all the allegations cited in the amended notice, and was ordered to “continue[ ] on probation with [s]trict compliance and 180 days of [h]ome [d]etention.” (Appellants App. Conf. Vol. II, p. 166).
[8] On May 21, 2021, another notice of probation violation was filed, asserting that Johns had tested positive for methamphetamine on April 20, 2021, and May 11, 2021, and that he had failed to complete his substance abuse evaluation and follow recommendations, as directed. A probation revocation hearing was set for June 25, 2021. A day before the scheduled hearing, on June 24, 2021, an amended notice of probation violation was filed, stating that Johns had additionally failed to report to drug screening, failed to report to the probation department as directed, and failed to report to the Electronic Monitoring Unit to confirm the completion of his monitoring and to have his GPS monitoring device removed. On August 25, 2021, a second amended notice of probation violation was filed, asserting that Johns had failed to maintain contact with the probation department.
[9] After Johns failed to appear at the probation revocation hearing on August 27, 2021, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. A probation revocation hearing was then held on November 9, 2021. During the hearing, Johns admitted that he had failed to comply with his substance abuse evaluation and follow recommendations, had failed to maintain contact with the probation department, and had tested positive for methamphetamine on April 21, 2021, and May 5, 2021. However, he denied the allegation that he had failed to report to the Electronic Monitoring Unit to confirm the completion of his monitoring and to have the GPS monitoring unit removed. Johns then presented evidence that, although he had suffered from drug addiction, he was employed, had stable housing, and was supporting his children. Johns asked the trial court to permit him to serve the remainder of his term in home detention or work release, so as to enable him to get back on his feet. Following Johns’ testimony, the trial court noted
I am looking at these allegations. This is not the first time youve been in the court for a violation of your probation conditions. Im also looking at the fact that you have been through -- or at least theres been the attempt to provide you with substance abuse treatment, and youve not taken advantage of that, and youve had positive drug screens since then.
(Tr. pp. 39-40). At the close of the hearing, the trial court revoked Johns’ probation and ordered him to serve 910 days of his previously-suspended sentence in the DOC.
[10] Johns now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[11] Johns appeals the trial courts order revoking his probation and the imposition of the balance of his previously-suspended sentence.
[12] “Probation is a matter of grace left to the trial courts discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). It is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if these conditions are violated. Id. We review the appeal from a trial courts probation determination and sanction for an abuse of discretion. See id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Rosa v. State, 832 N.E.2d at 1119, 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
[13] Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition has actually occurred. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation. Id. However, where, as here, a probationer admits to the violations, the trial court can proceed immediately to the second step of the inquiry and determine whether the violation warrants revocation. Id. In determining whether the violation warrants revocation, the probationer must be given an opportunity to present evidence that explains and mitigates his violation. See id. Once a violation has been found and revocation of probation is warranted, the trial court may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the persons 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).
[14] At the probation revocation hearing, Johns admitted that he had failed to submit to drug screening as directed, failed to comply with substance abuse evaluation, failed to report to the probation department as directed, and tested positive for methamphetamine on April 21, 2021, and on May 5, 2021. Despite his admission to violating several terms of his probation, he now asserts that he deserves a less severe sanction such as “home detention or work release, which would [ ] enabled [him] to retain his job, support his children, and continue to be a productive member of society, rather than serving time behind bars.” (Appellants Br. p. 11). The State counters that the trial court gave Johns lenient sanctions following his probation violations in 2020, however, Johns committed several more violations in 2021. The State argues that Johns’ violations indicate that he “was not achieving any genuine rehabilitation by being given the grace of probation.” (Appellees Br. p. 8). We agree.
[15] When Johns pleaded guilty to the Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury, he received a great deal of leniency in his original sentence. According to the terms of his plea agreement, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence, all suspended to probation. Johns was required to address his grave substance abuse problem while on probation; instead, he tested positive multiple times for illegal drugs and failed to complete his substance abuse evaluation and follow the recommendations. After he was placed on electronic monitoring in 2020 following his probation violations, Johns was given yet another chance in the community. However, while excising that freedom, he committed additional violations, which included new contacts with the criminal justice system for his resisting arrest offenses. Johns also failed to address his substance abuse issues. Instead of taking advantage of the treatment he was being offered while on probation, he failed to submit to drug screening, and had several failed drug screens. As the trial court noted, Johns’ previous opportunities for treatment during probation had not been effective. Lastly, we note that Johns’ drug problem was not the only issue leading to his probation revocation, as Johns also failed to maintain contact with the probation department. Given these circumstances, we cannot conclude that it was an abuse of the trial courts discretion to order Johns to serve the balance of his previously-suspended three-year sentence.
CONCLUSION
[16] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Johns’ probation and we affirm the trial courts imposition of Johns’ previously-suspended sentence.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, Judge.
[18] May, J. and Tavitas, J. concur