MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] While on probation for dealing in methamphetamine, Rhonda Dobbs tested positive for the drug and then absconded for nearly three years. For this probation violation, the court sentenced her to six months of home detention and an additional six months of probation. Less than a month later, Dobbs tested positive for methamphetamine again. Based on the foregoing, the trial court revoked Dobbss probation and ordered her to serve her previously suspended sentence of three years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Dobbs appeals this sanction as too severe based on the allegedly “technical” nature of her violation. We find no abuse of the trial courts discretion and affirm.
Facts
[2] Dobbs pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony dealing in methamphetamine and was sentenced to three years in DOC, all suspended to probation. Among the conditions of Dobbss probation, the trial court ordered her to obey the law, abstain from using controlled substances, and submit to random drug screens. Dobbs began serving her probation in March 2020, and she tested positive for methamphetamine seven months later.
[3] The State filed a notice of probation violation, and the trial court issued a warrant for Dobbss arrest. Dobbs, however, “absconded for almost three years.” App. Vol. II, p. 38. When she was finally arrested in November 2023, Dobbs admitted to the probation violation, and the trial court imposed a sanction of six months of home detention, followed by six months of probation.
[4] Twenty-six days later, while on home detention, Dobbs again tested positive for methamphetamine. The State filed a second notice of probation violation, to which Dobbs admitted. The trial court then sanctioned Dobbs by revoking her probation and reinstating her previously suspended three-year sentence.
[5] Dobbs appeals this sanction as too severe.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Probation is not a right but “a matter of grace left to trial court discretion.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). Accordingly, we reverse a trial courts decision to revoke probation only for an abuse of discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008).
[7] When probation is violated, a trial court can impose any one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continuing probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extending probation for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) ordering execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). The appropriateness of a sanction depends upon the “severity of the defendants probation violation.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013).
[8] Dobbs claims the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to serve her previously suspended three-year sentence based on a single probation violation. But a single violation is sufficient to support probation revocation. See Puckett v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (finding no abuse of discretion where trial court revoked defendants probation and reinstated prison sentence after defendant failed single drug test one month into home detention).
[9] Dobbs also characterizes her methamphetamine use as a mere “technical” violation of her probation. Appellants Br., p. 10. We disagree. See Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (rejecting claim that positive drug screens were technical violations). Dobbs was on probation for dealing in methamphetamine, and after first testing positive for the drug, the court offered her grace in the form of six months on home detention. Yet, less than a month later, Dobbs squandered this grace by again testing positive for the same drug.
[10] Finally, as she did at the trial court, Dobbs emphasizes that she immediately arranged to enter a drug treatment facility after testing positive for methamphetamine a second time. Dobbs, however, offered no explanation for why she failed to take this step during the nearly three years she was absconding after her first failed drug screen. The trial court was not obligated to credit her testimony, and we will not reweigh evidence on appeal. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639.
[11] Dobbs has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation and reinstating her previously suspended sentence. We therefore affirm the trial courts judgment.
Vaidik, J., and Foley, J., concur.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Weissmann
Judges Vaidik and Foley concur.