MEMORANDUM DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Defendant, Desmound L. Trimble (Trimble), appeals the trial courts revocation of his probation and order to serve almost the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUE
[3] Trimble presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering him to serve nearly all of his suspended sentence after he was arrested on new charges.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On November 18, 2021, Trimble entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he pleaded guilty to domestic battery as a Level 5 felony in exchange for a suspended sentence of four years with 1,366 days of probation. At the time, Trimble also had eighteen months to serve on probation in Delaware County and four years to serve in Marion County. On February 21, 2022, Trimble was arrested and charged with three new Counts of domestic battery. On February 24, 2022, three days after Trimbles arrest on these new charges, the State filed a petition to revoke Trimbles suspended sentence in the current cause, alleging that Trimble had violated a term of his probation, i.e., “You shall not violate any town, city, county, state or federal laws and ordinances. You will notify the Probation Department within 48 hours of any new arrest.” (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 53). Together with the petition, the State filed the Information for the new charges, the affidavit for probable cause, the incident reports, and the officers’ narratives which had been made part of the probable cause affidavit. That same day, the trial court issued a warrant for Trimbles arrest after having examined the affidavit for probable cause. The trial court confirmed in its order that, from its examination of the affidavit, “there is probable cause to believe that [Trimble] has violated the terms of probation as alleged in the [v]erified [p]etition to [r]evoke [s]uspended [s]entence.” (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 68).
[5] On September 28, 2023, at the final revocation hearing, Trimble admitted to being arrested for additional Counts of domestic battery while on probation in the current cause but did not admit to having committed these new offenses. However, he did admit that his arrest violated the terms and conditions of his probation in the current cause. The trial court accepted the admission and revoked 1,300 days of Trimbles previously suspended sentence.
[6] Trimble now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
[7] “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) (explaining that “[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.”). A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Brown v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1179, 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue, we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment—without regard to weight or credibility—and will affirm if “there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial courts conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.” Id.
[8] It is generally acknowledged that the State need not show that a defendant was convicted of a crime in order for the trial court to revoke probation. Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 907, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Although an arrest standing alone does not necessarily support a revocation of probation, where there is evidence submitted at the hearing from which the trial court could find that an arrest was reasonable and that there is probable cause for the belief that the defendant violated a criminal law, revocation of probation is permitted. Id.
[9] Together with its petition to revoke Trimbles probation due to his arrest on new charges, the State submitted the following supporting documents: the Information for the new charges, the affidavit for probable cause, the incident reports, and the officers’ narratives which had been made part of the probable cause affidavit. After reviewing this evidence, the trial court concluded that “there is probable cause to believe that [Trimble] has violated the terms of probation as alleged in the [v]erified [p]etition to [r]evoke [s]uspended [s]entence.” (Appellants App. Vol. II, p. 68). See also, e.g., Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (the trial court revoked Pitmans probation after he was arrested on new charges based on evidence in the form of certified copies of the court docket, the police report, and the charging information), trans. denied. Trimble does not dispute the admissibility of these supporting documents and the evidence reflects that at the time of the revocation hearing, his new criminal charges were still pending. As such, we will not disturb the trial courts finding that Trimble violated his probation.
[10] Turning to the imposition of his sanction, Trimble concedes that by the time of the disposition he had already served 816 days, but he disputes that to order him to serve an additional 484 days simply for being arrested and accused of other offenses was an abuse of discretion. Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h), if a petition to revoke probation is filed within the defendants probationary period and the trial court finds the defendant has violated any terms of probation, the trial court may (1) continue the defendant on probation, (2) extend the defendants probationary period by up to one year, or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” While probation may be revoked based on evidence of a violation of a single condition, the selection of an appropriate sanction will depend upon the severity of the defendants probation violation. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013).
[11] Trimble was initially placed on 1,366 days of formal probation after pleading guilty to domestic battery on November 18, 2021. On February 21, 2022, Trimble was arrested and charged with two Counts of domestic battery and one Count of domestic battery resulting in moderate bodily injury—similar crimes to the ones for which he was already on probation. At the time, he was also on probation in two other separate causes. Trimble clearly cannot abide by the terms of more lenient sentences. During the revocation proceeding, the trial court found that Trimble was not “a good candidate for probation” based on his history in other counties and his current violation. (Transcript p. 13). Trimbles repeated commission of criminal offenses while on probation and his failure to reform his behavior when granted more lenient sentences support the trial courts revocation of 1,300 days of his previously suspended sentence.
CONCLUSION
[12] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Trimbles probation and ordering him to serve nearly all of his suspended sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Riley, Judge.
Brown, J. and Foley, J. concur