MEMORANDUM DECISION
Altice, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Delvon Delon Jones appeals the revocation of his probation under three causes. He presents the following restated and consolidated issues for review:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting into evidence two photographs at the probation hearing?
2. Did the State present sufficient evidence to support revocation of probation under each cause?
[2] We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On January 31, 2022, Jones entered into a plea agreement with the State resolving several pending criminal matters. Relevant here, he pled guilty to: Level 6 felony domestic battery under Cause No. 27D02-2108-F5-115 (F5-115); Level 6 felony domestic battery under Cause No. 27D02-2108-F6-524 (F6-524); and Level 6 felony domestic battery and Level 6 felony strangulation under Cause No. 27D02-2111-F6-749 (F6-749). The trial court sentenced Jones, pursuant to the plea agreement, to one and one-half years on each conviction to be served consecutively except for the two convictions under F6-749, which were to be served concurrently with each other. This resulted in an aggregate sentence of four and one-half years, with all but six months suspended to supervised probation.
[4] After serving his executed time in jail, Jones was released to supervised probation on March 31, 2022. The terms of his probation required, among other things, that Jones have no contact with Lindsey Jones – his wife, the victim in each cause – and that he attend and complete a domestic violence program.
[5] On June 1, 2022, the State filed separate petitions to revoke Joness probation in all three causes, alleging that he had violated the no-contact order. The allegations were based on information provided to Joness probation officer, Joshua Garcia, from a family case manager (FCM) with the Indiana Department of Child Services. Specifically, the State alleged that on or about April 4, 2022, FCM Jeremy Emerson provided Officer Garcia with “documentation (photographs)” that Jones was in violation of the no-contact order. Appendix Vol. 2 at 49. The State also alleged that on May 20, 2022, FCM Emerson notified Officer Garcia that during one of his visits with Lindseys children, who were involved in a CHINS case, the children disclosed to FCM Emerson that Jones had been in the car with Lindsey on May 19 and that Jones had been in contact with Lindsey May 13 through May 15.
[6] On June 28, 2022, the State filed an addendum to the F5-115 revocation petition only. In this addendum, the State alleged additional violations of probation, including that Jones had failed to report to probation in June and that he had been expelled from his domestic violence program due to lack of attendance and failure to pay fees.
[7] In 2023, the State filed two more addendums, this time under each cause, alleging that Jones had committed new criminal offenses on March 12 and April 9, 2023. The State, however, presented no evidence of these allegations at the probation revocation factfinding hearing held on October 30, 2023.
[8] The State called two witnesses at the factfinding hearing. The first, Marion Police Department Officer Colten Compton, testified about an incident on May 7, 2023, in which he saw Jones and Lindsey together and then Jones fled the scene before being located and arrested. Jones objected to Officer Comptons testimony on the basis that none of the allegations in the probation revocation petitions or addendums included this May 7 incident. When the State represented that this was “part of the probation violation,” Jones withdrew his objection. Transcript at 5. Shortly after the hearing concluded and Jones was sentenced, the State filed a notice with the trial court that addendums had not, in fact, been filed pertaining to this new criminal offense.
[9] The States second witness, Officer Garcia, testified briefly regarding information he received from FCM Emerson, which led to the filing of the initial petitions in this case. Over Joness hearsay objection, Officer Garcia was permitted to testify that on April 4, 2022, FCM Emerson provided him with two photographs of Lindsey and Jones together.
1
When the State sought to admit the two photographs into evidence, Jones objected on foundational grounds. He argued that Officer Garcia could not establish when or by whom the photographs were taken. Officer Garcia acknowledged that he was “not able to verify or validate” the photographs and did not know when they were taken. Id. at 14. The trial court admitted the photographs into evidence as States Exhibits 1 and 2, concluding that Joness objection went to the weight not the admissibility of the evidence.
[10] Officer Garcia also testified about Joness expulsion from the domestic violence program for missing classes and not paying fees. During his own testimony, Jones acknowledged missing three classes in June 2022 and not completing the domestic violence program as ordered. Jones blamed his noncompliance on the States filing of the probation petitions based on “fake pictures” – the ones admitted into evidence – that Jones claimed were taken long before his period of probation started. Id. at 25. Jones also acknowledged during his testimony that he had not reported to probation since the end of May 2022.
[11] At the end of the hearing, the trial court found Jones in violation of probation under each cause. The court explained:
[Jones] was ordered to complete a domestic violence program. By his own admission he has not completed that program. The evidence supports that he was terminated from that program due to an attendance issue, failing to attend as well as owing fees. Further I find that Mr. Jones failed to report to probation, which again is a violation of a rule of probation, by the evidence as well as his own admission. And then further I find that Mr. Jones violated the terms of probation by having contact with Ms. Jones on May 7th of 2023 pursuant to the evidence provided during the hearing.
Id. at 31. The court then sentenced Jones to consecutive terms in the Grant County Jail of 180 days in F5-115 and 300 days each in F6-749 and F6-524. Jones had 177 actual days credit, having been incarcerated since May 7, 2023, which credit the trial court applied “first to the F5-115 and then any remainder [ ] to the remaining sentence.” Id. at 33.
[12] The trial court issued a written order after receiving the notice from the State acknowledging that addendums relating to the May 7 incident had not been filed and thus the incident could not serve as a basis to find Jones in violation of probation. The order, which did not reference the May 7 incident, provided in relevant part:
1. The Court takes judicial notice of the contents of the file, including Defendants signed probation terms. The Court finds Probation Officer Josh Garcias testimony to be credible and relies upon it to find that Defendant violated the terms of his probation. The Court does not find Defendants testimony or excuses credible or convincing.
2. Defendant violated the terms of his probation by: (a) failing to complete domestic violence classes as ordered, (b) was in violation of the no contact order ․ as evidenced through photographs provided to probation from [FCM] Emerson, and (c) failing to report to probation as ordered as he last reported to probation in May 2022.
3. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered into a Plea Agreement on the original charges under the causes in which he was placed on probation and sentenced accordingly. He has now committed multiple violations of his probation. Defendant has demonstrated he is not willing to follow the most basic rules of probation. Defendants behavior and attitude indicates that he is not a good candidate for continued probation.
Appendix Vol. 2 at 14.
[13] Jones now appeals. Additional information will be provided below as needed.
Discussion & Decision
1. Admission of Evidence
[14] Jones challenges the admission into evidence of States Exhibits 1 and 2 – the two photographs of Jones and Lindsey together. Though recognizing that the Rules of Evidence do not apply in probation hearings, see Ind. Evidence Rule 101(d)(2), Jones argues that the trial court abused its discretion because the State failed to authenticate the photographs and thus did not lay a foundation for their admission. That is, Officer Garcia, the sponsoring witness, could not establish who took the photographs and, more importantly, whether they were taken while Jones was actually on probation.
[15] In probation hearings, a trial court may consider “any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability.” Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999)). “The absence of strict evidentiary rules places particular importance on the factfinding role of judges in assessing the weight, sufficiency and reliability of proffered evidence.” Id.
[16] On appeal, the State presents no argument regarding the admissibility of the photographs because it concedes that regardless of admissibility, the evidence was insufficient to support revocation on the basis that Jones violated the no-contact order. Given our holding below, we agree with the State that there is no need to decide the admissibility issue.
2. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[17] A probation revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and an alleged violation needs to be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a), (f); Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 617 (Ind. 2013). Revocations are reviewed on appeal for an abuse of discretion, which occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Phipps v. State, 177 N.E.3d 123, 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). “We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, without reweighing evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.” Id. (quoting Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008)). “If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial courts conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation.” Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551; see also Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (“The violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.”), trans. denied.
[18] As noted above, the State concedes that the evidence was not sufficient to support revocation based on violation of the no-contact order, an allegation under all three causes. Indeed, the written revocation order reveals that the trial courts determination that Jones violated this condition of probation was based solely on the photographs admitted into evidence. While Officer Garcia identified both Jones and Lindsey in the photographs, the State presented no evidence of when the photographs were taken except that they were taken on or before April 4, 2022, the date Officer Garcia received them from FCM Emerson. Jones began serving probation on March 31, 2022, and Jones testified that the photographs were taken well before his period of probation.
[19] The revocations in F6-524 and F6-749 were based solely on the pictured contact, which evidence was insufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones had contact with Lindsey while on probation. Accordingly, we reverse those judgments.
[20] F5-115, however, was supported by additional violations – failure to report to probation and expulsion from the domestic violence program – that were specifically alleged in the addendum filed on June 28, 2022. Officer Garcia testified that Jones was expelled from the domestic violence program for missing classes and not paying fees. And by his own testimony, Jones admitted that he had failed to report to probation since the end of May 2022 and that he missed several domestic violence classes in June 2022. Jones explained that after the initial violation was filed, he “left from [his] residence in Marion.” Transcript at 24. In sum, the evidence establishes that within two months of starting probation, Jones left his residence and entirely stopped reporting to probation or attending domestic violence classes.
[21] In revoking Joness probation in F5-115, the trial court expressly relied on these two additional violations, which are amply supported by the record. The trial court explained that Jones had shown his unwillingness to “follow the most basic rules of probation” and that his “behavior and attitude indicate[d] that he [was] not a good candidate for continued probation.” Appendix Vol. 2 at 14. We observe that these statements are true even without the additional unsupported finding that Jones violated probation by having contact with Lindsey. Accordingly, with respect to F5-115 only, we find harmless the trial courts erroneous finding that Jones violated probation by having contact with Lindsey. See Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“Although the erroneous finding that Figures committed a criminal offense formed part of the basis for the trial courts decision to revoke his probation, the trial court did nothing to indicate it would have reached a different decision had it considered only the two unchallenged violations.”).
[22] Judgment in F5-115 affirmed and judgments in F6-524 and F6-749 reversed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. The trial court did not permit Officer Garcia to testify regarding what the children allegedly disclosed to FCM Emerson on May 19, 2022, ruling that was unreliable double hearsay.
Memorandum Decision by Chief Judge Altice
Judges Bailey and Mathias concur.
Bailey, J. and Mathias, J., concur.