Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court to execute a suspended sentence after a probation violation; credit for time served during probation need not reduce the executed portion when the total remains within the original sentence.

Brattain v. State · filed 2002-11-04

If the trial court finds that a defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation before termination of the probationary period, the trial court may “order execution of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2001 Supp.). ... Similarly, Brattain’s total sentence may not exceed his original four-year sentence. However, as the State points out, the trial court did not impose the full four-year sentence. Rather, the trial court only imposed two years of the sentence. Thus, even considering the previously imposed credit, the credit for time served on work release, the credit for time served on house arrest, and the two-year sentence, the total four-year sentence has not yet been exceeded. Brattain has not yet been denied his credit for time served on the work release and house arrest.

After finding a probation violation, a court may order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Michael Laroy McCullough, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-10(h)

After finding a ... violation, 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; and (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... Based on this evidence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it terminated McCullough’s probation and ordered him to serve balance of his previously suspended sentence executed.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a trial court to order execution of the entire previously suspended sentence after revoking probation, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Terpstra v. State of Indiana · filed 2019-12-11(h)

Given these circumstances, we find that the trial court acted within its wide discretion in ordering Terpstra to serve all of his previously-suspended sentence.

Subsection (h) permits a trial court that revokes probation to order execution of all or part of a previously-suspended sentence, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Robert A. Wilson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-01-24(h)

If a trial court revokes probation, it may continue the person on probation, extend the probationary period for not more than one year, or order the execution of all or part of the previously-suspended sentence. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). ... It was within the trial court’s considerable discretion to conclude that Wilson did not merit any additional conditional freedom and that he should execute most his previously-suspended sentence.

After revoking probation, a court may order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Christopher Bell, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-08-19(h)(3)

After revocation, the trial court in its discretion may order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a trial court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Allmond v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-10-03(h)(3)

Upon finding that a defendant has violated a condition of his probation, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) (2018).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that revokes probation to order execution of all or part of the previously suspended sentence.

Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-07(h)

If a trial court revokes probation, it may continue the person on probation, extend the probationary period for not more than one year, or order the execution of all or part of the previously-suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... Given these circumstances, we cannot conclude that it was an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to order Jones to serve his previously-suspended four-year sentence.

For a violation governed by the pre-July 2005 version of subsection (g), a court may continue probation, extend it by no more than one year, or order execution of the suspended sentence.

Williams v. State · filed 2008-03-27(g)

In accordance with Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(g), a trial court has three options if a defendant violates probation. Specifically, the trial court may continue the defendant’s probation, extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period, or order execution of the suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to impose one or more listed sanctions, including execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Taylor v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-03-13(g)

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g) permits judges to sentence offenders using any one of or any combination of the enumerated options.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Preston v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-03-20(g)

Given the extraordinary grace that the trial court has already afforded Preston and his repeated unwillingness to comply with probationary terms, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering that Preston serve seven years in the DOC.

When imposing a sanction after revoking probation, a court may not rely on its view that the original plea sentence was too lenient or find that the defendant committed a more serious crime than the one of conviction.

Puckett v. State · filed 2011-11-15(g)

A trial court’s belief that a sentence imposed under such an agreement was “too lenient” is not a proper basis upon which to determine the length of a sentence to be imposed following a revocation of probation. We also hold that it is improper when revoking probation for a trial court to find that the defendant actually committed a more serious crime than the one or ones of which he or she was originally convicted.

Subsection (g) permits a court to order execution of a suspended sentence after a probation violation; considering alternatives to incarceration is discretionary.

Certain v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-02-29(g)

At this point, the trial court has the option of (1) continuing the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extending the person’s probationary period 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 time of the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). ... However, consideration of any alternatives to incarceration is a “matter of grace” and not a matter of right.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that revokes probation to continue or extend probation, or to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Alford v. State · filed 2012-04-05(g)

Upon the revocation of probation, a 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; (3) order execution on all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3(g).

Subsection (g) permits a trial court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Hunter v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-05-24(g)

See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g) (permitting trial court to continue person on probation with or without modifying conditions, extend the probationary period for not more than one year, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence). ... Given Hunter’s recidivism, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s zero-tolerance approach in imposing the full five-year backup term.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) lets a court continue or modify probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of the suspended sentence after a probation violation.

McGee v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-05-29(g)

Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may continue probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions, extend probation for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period, or order execution of the initial sentence that was suspended. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g).

Section 35-38-2-3(a)(1) permits revocation when a probationer violates a condition of probation during the probationary period; new criminal conduct may be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

Staton v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-08-01(a)(1)

A person’s probation may be revoked if he or she violates a condition of probation during the probationary period. Id. (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1)). ... This evidence was more than sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Staton committed battery and disorderly conduct.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the previously suspended sentence.

Goldman v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-08-30

When a court finds that a person has violated a condition of probation, the court may: (1) continue the person on probation; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the previously-suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2008). ... Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s sentence of one and one-half years from a previously-suspended sentence of two years and ten months is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to impose any one or combination of its listed sanctions, including execution of the suspended sentence.

Haas v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-09-28(g)

This provision permits judges to sentence offenders using any one of or any combination of the enumerated options. ... Given the circumstances as set forth above and in the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ordering Haas to serve his previously suspended sentence of ten years.

After a probation violation, Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits the court to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Lewis v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-12-31(h)

After finding that a person has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s 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. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

After finding a probation violation, a court may order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Frohwerk v. Levenhagen · filed 2013-01-22(g)

Indeed, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g), which governs a court’s power to revoke probation following a finding of a probation violation, specifically provides that the court may impose sanctions including ordering the “execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.”

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Large v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-10-01(h)

If a defendant is found to have violated his or her probation, a trial court may (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; and/or (3) order all or part of a previously suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... We decline to find the trial court’s decision to require Large to serve his one-year suspended sentence to be an abuse of discretion.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Phipps v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-09(g)

If a petition to revoke probation is filed within the defendant’s 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, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions, (2) extend the defendant’s probationary period by up to one year beyond the original probationary period, or (3) order the execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Rothell v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-12(h)

Pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h), if the court finds a violation of a condition of probation, it may continue the person on probation, with or without modifying the conditions; extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one year; and/or order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to continue probation, extend it, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Gonzalez v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-26(h)

The trial court determines the conditions of probation, and if the conditions are violated, the trial court may impose three types of sanction: (1) continue the person on probation with no modifications to the probationary conditions; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation; doing so for repeated failures to report and update an address was within the court's discretion.

Morst v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-30(h)

Given the circumstances as set forth above and in the record, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in ordering Morst to serve his previously suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after finding a probation violation.

Morgan v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-01-27

The trial court acted within its discretion under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 when it found by a preponderance of the evidence Morgan committed the new offenses and ordered the suspended sentence be served.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Percifield v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-02-07(g)

If the trial court decides to revoke probation, it may continue the probation without modification, extend the probationary period for a year, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence. ... Based upon these facts, Percifield violated the terms of his probation on numerous occasions, and the trial court was therefore within its discretion to order him to serve the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence as executed time in the Department of Correction.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

William R. Griffin, II v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-06-16(h)

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides in part that if the court finds that a person has violated a condition of probation, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

After a probation violation, subsection (g) permits the court to order execution of all or part of the originally suspended sentence.

Gregg v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-06-18(g)

If a trial court determines that a person has violated a term of probation before termination of the period, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. ... Balancing these considerations, the court’s decision to impose a two-year sentence is not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

After revoking probation, a court may continue or extend probation, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Chavez v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-05-21(g)

Upon the revocation of probation, a 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; (3) order execution on all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

After revoking probation, a court may continue or extend probation or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Estridge v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-02-07(h)

Upon the revocation of probation, 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; and (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that revokes probation to order the defendant to serve all or part of the previously suspended sentence.

Pearson v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-12-27(h)

Upon revoking probation, the trial court may impose one of several statutory sanctions, including ordering the defendant to execute all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that revokes probation to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Meisberger v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-06-19(h)

In light of this evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it determined that revoking the entirety of Meisberger’s probation was an appropriate sanction for his probation violation.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that revokes probation to order the defendant to serve all or part of the previously suspended sentence.

Ballew v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-11-27(h)

Upon revoking probation, the trial court may impose one of several statutory sanctions, including ordering the defendant to execute all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of sentencing.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence upon revoking probation.

Breedlove v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-06-16(g)

Upon the revocation of probation, a 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution on all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). ... Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked his probation and ordered Breedlove to serve the remainder of his previously-suspended sentence.

Subsection (g) permits a court that revokes probation to continue probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Cole v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-07-23(g)

Upon the revocation of probation, the trial court may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; and (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g).

Section 35-38-2-3 gives trial courts discretion in choosing a disposition after finding a probation violation.

Coleman v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-06-20

Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 provides leeway to the trial court in terms of its disposition upon the finding of a probation violation.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) allows a court revoking probation to order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Peavler v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-05-24(h)

Those sanctions include continuing the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions, extending the person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period, and ordering execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Rivera v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-11-26(h)

Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that imposing a seven-year sentence amounts to an abuse of the sentencing discretion granted to the trial court.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) allows a court responding to a probation violation to continue probation, extend it for up to one year, or order some or all of the suspended sentence served as executed time.

Anthony Levell Gregory, II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-07-24(h)

When faced with a probation violation, the trial court may, in its discretion, continue the probationary period, extend the probationary period for up to one year, or order that some or all of the probationer’s suspended sentence be served as executed time. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h).

After a probation violation, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Emery D. Scruggs v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-08-20(h)

If a court finds that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Scruggs to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.

After a probation violation, § 35-38-2-3 permits the court to continue probation, extend it for up to one year beyond the original period, or execute all or part of the suspended sentence.

Bergfeld v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-12-10

Once a trial court has concluded that probation has been violated, it may continue the defendant on probation, extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period, or order all or part of the previously-suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2014).

When a person violates probation, Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits the court to continue probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Violet E. Tunstall v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-12-22(h)

When a court finds that a person has violated a condition of probation, the court may: (1) continue the person on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for no more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the previously-suspended sentence. ... Because the trial court’s decision is not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion here.

After a probation violation, the court may order execution of all or part of the previously suspended sentence.

Drescher v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-12-23(h)(3)

Once a trial court has concluded that probation has been violated, it may continue the defendant on probation, extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period, or order all or part of the previously suspended sentence to be executed. ... Based on the foregoing, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding of a probation violation, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Drescher's probation and imposing his previously suspended sentences.

After a probation violation, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Barry v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-02-01(h)(3)

Although the court has several alternative sanctions it may impose where it has found that a defendant has violated his probation, one of those sanctions is to order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

Upon revoking probation, a court may order execution of the entire sentence originally suspended.

Melissa S. Johnson Mabie v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-09-10(h)(3)

Moreover, pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3), upon the revocation of her probation the trial court could have ordered Mabie to execute the entirety of her originally suspended three-year sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) authorizes a court to order execution of the remaining suspended sentence after revoking probation.

Cox v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-09-24(h)(3)

After revoking his probation, the trial court ordered Cox to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence as authorized by Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court to order execution of the full suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to abuse-of-discretion review.

Powers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-06-30(g)

We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it reinstated Powers’ twelve-year suspended sentence.

After revoking probation, a court may order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence and may consider medical records the probationer submitted when choosing that sanction.

Davis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-11-10(h)(1)-(3)

Upon revocation of probation, a 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 person’s probationary period for not more than one (1) 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. ... For all of these reasons, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering the information in Davis’s medical records when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended three-year sentence.

Subsection (h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Hasche v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-02-29(h)

Accordingly, the trial court was authorized by statute to impose the sanction selected for Hasche.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to continue probation, extend it for up to one year beyond the original period, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Klemme v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-03-10(h)

In accordance with Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3, a trial court has three options if a defendant violates probation. It may: (1) continue the defendant’s probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3 does not require a court to choose the “most effective and appropriate” sanction for a probation violation.

Dyer v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-08-12(h)

Neither Prewitt nor Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3 imposes a “most effective and appropriate” requirement.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation, without balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Flynn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-11-28(h)(3)

The court has several alternative sanctions it may impose where it has found that a defendant has violated his probation. One of those sanctions is to order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Id.; see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). In doing so, trial courts are not required to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-01-26(h)

Taylor has not demonstrated the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation or in ordering execution of the entirety of Taylor’s suspended sentence.

When a defendant violates a condition of probation, subsection (h) permits the court to order execution of the full suspended sentence.

Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-02-28(h)

Accordingly, it was well within the trial court’s authority to order Thomas to execute his suspended sentence.

Subsection (h)(3) authorizes a court to revoke probation after a violation and order execution of the suspended sentence.

Viers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-04-12(h)(3)

Accordingly, the trial court had the statutory authority to revoke Viers’ probation and require her to serve the remainder of her suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of the originally suspended sentence.

Adams v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-07-13(h)(3)

By statute, when the trial court finds a probationer has violated the conditions of his probation, the trial court “may . . . order execution of all or part” of the originally suspended sentence. Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (alteration and quotations omitted) (quoting I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3)).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation, and the choice of sanction is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Lewis R. Ross, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-02-18(h)

... (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. ... Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

After revoking probation, a court may order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Webb v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-12-12(h)

Upon revocation of probation, a 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 person’s 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. Alford v. State, 965 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(l) – (3)). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Webb’s probation and ordered him to serve the eighteen-month balance of his previously suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Castillo v. State of Indiana · filed 2017-01-11(h)

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the probation period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one or more sanctions, including ordering execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. ... Given Castillo’s blatant disregard for the terms of his probation, the trial court was well within its discretion to sanction him by ordering him to serve his previously suspended sentence.

A trial court retains authority during probation to consider violations and partial compliance and determine the appropriate sanction despite an earlier agreement prescribing a sanction.

Hampton v. State of Indiana · filed 2017-03-13(g)

The trial court had continuing authority to consider Hampton’s violations and her partial compliance, and it was required to determine the appropriate sanction to impose.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of a suspended sentence.

Redman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-09-09(g)

Accordingly, when the trial court in the present case ordered Redman to serve two of the four previously-suspended years for violating his probation, it was acting within its statutory authority.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) allows a court to order execution of a suspended sentence after a probation violation, including the remaining balance when the circumstances support it.

Jeffares v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-09-28(h)

Given Jeffares’ failures to address his drug problems and his pattern of ... squandering the opportunities that he has been given, it was within the trial court’s discretion to sentence him to the balance of his eighteen-year sentence for violating his probation a second time.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Tommy J. Sexton v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-07-25(h)(3)

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) sets forth a trial court’s sentencing options as follows: ... (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. ... Under the circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering that Sexton serve four and one-half years in the Department of Correction.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court to order execution of part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Whitesides v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-09-27(h)(3)

We first note, that after Whitesides admitted to various probation violations, it was well within the trial court’s discretion to revoke his direct placement and probation and order him to execute a portion of his suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of a suspended sentence after a timely petition establishes a probation violation, and the court may consider the probationer’s criminal history when choosing a sanction.

Bowles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-10-04(h)

“If the court finds the defendant has violated a condition of his probation at any time before the termination of the probationary period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, then the court may order execution of the sentence that had been suspended.” Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see also I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). ... Even if the trial court did consider such, the serial nature of Bowles’s criminal history was relevant and a proper consideration.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court that finds a probation violation to continue probation, change its terms, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Shryock v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-12-04

If a trial court determines that a probationer has violated the terms of his probation, the trial court may continue the defendant on probation, change the terms of the probation, or order all or part of the previously suspended sentence to be executed. I.C. § 35-38-2-3.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Roger A. Burris, II v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-12-19(h)

Burris admitted that he violated the conditions of his probation. Therefore, the trial court was statutorily authorized to impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions: (1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions. (2) Extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period. (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). The trial court revoked Burris’s probation and ordered him to serve the entirety of his previously suspended four-year sentence in the Department of Correction.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Scott v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-12-27(h)(3)

If the trial court finds that the person violated a condition of probation, it may order the execution of any part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Stephens v. State, 818 N.E.2d 936, 942 (Ind. 2004); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) (allowing a trial court, in case of a violation of the terms of probation, to “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.”). ... Given Scott’s admission to violating the terms of his probation and the proven failure of leniency to reform him, we do not find fault with the trial court’s imposition of three years of community corrections followed by three years of probation.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence.

Edgell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-01-23(g)

If a defendant is found to have violated his or her probation, a trial court may (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; and/or (3) order all or part of a previously suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g).

After a probation violation, subsection (g) permits a court to order execution of the entire previously suspended sentence, even when the offense constituting the violation received its maximum sentence.

Neal v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-02-23(g)

If a defendant is found to have violated his or her probation, a trial court may (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; or (3) order all or part of a previously-suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered Neal to execute his previously-suspended sentence in its entirety.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a trial court to order execution of a suspended sentence after a probation violation if proper procedures are followed.

Demaree v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-04-12(h)

Consequently, so long as proper procedures have been followed, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence after revoking probation.

After a probation violation, subsection (h) permits the court to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Burnworth v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-04-12(h)

Consequently, so long as proper procedures have been followed, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence after revoking probation. ... The trial court was therefore well within its discretion to order Burnworth to serve the six-year balance of his previously suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to impose one or more sanctions for a probation violation, including execution of all or part of a suspended sentence, when the petition is filed during the probationary period.

Godsey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-07-16(h)

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the probation period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one or more sanctions, including ordering execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a trial court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after finding a probation violation.

Burgess v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-07-18(g)

If a defendant is found to have violated probation, a trial court may (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; or (3) order all or part of a previously-suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g). ... The trial court’s decision ordering Burgess to serve the remainder of his sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction was not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstance before it, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Burgess’s probation.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence.

Allen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-11-29(h)

If the court finds that a person has violated even a single condition of probation, the court may impose one or more sanctions, including ordering execution of all or part of a suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(i) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Bruner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-07-03(i)

Accordingly, because of Bruner’s flagrant and repeated violations of probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering him to serve the entirety of the sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) permits a court to order all or part of a previously suspended sentence executed after a probation violation.

Alberto Barrios v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-06-18(g)

The trial court’s decision ordering Barrios to serve the remainder of his six-year sentence was not clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstance before it, and the court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Barrios’ probation.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to consider a probationer's criminal history and prior violations when choosing a sanction for a probation violation.

Eshelman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-08-09(h)

There is nothing improper about a trial court considering such matters in determining the appropriate sanction for a probation violation.

Section 35-38-2-3(g) allows a court that finds a probation violation to continue probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence.

McQueen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-09-17(g)

Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, a court may: (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; or (3) order all or part of a previously-suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order all or part of a previously suspended sentence to be served.

Jackson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-09-17(h)

Upon finding that a probationer has violated a condition of probation, a court may (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original period; or (3) order all or part of a previously-suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Jackson to serve the balance of his ten-year suspended sentence.

Subsection (h) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after a probation violation, subject to review for abuse of discretion.

Symons v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-10-15(h)

Concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering Symons to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction, we affirm.

Subsection (h) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after finding a probation violation.

Dominique Quinn Brisker v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-12-13(h)

After the trial court has determined that a probationer has violated probation, the trial court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions: ... (3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. ... Accordingly, the trial court was well within its discretion to order Brisker to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence upon finding that he had violated the terms of his probation.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Nicasio v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-12-27

If a trial court determines a person has violated a condition of probation, the trial court may: (1) continue the person on probation; (2) extend the probationary period; and/or (3) order execution of all or part of the previously-suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3. ... For these reasons, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Nicasio to serve three years of his previously-suspended sentence.

After finding a probation violation, subsection (h) permits the court to continue or extend probation or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Bass v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-23(h)

Having concluded that Bass committed a probation violation, the trial court could impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue Bass’ probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend his 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 the initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). Pursuant to the statute, the trial court chose to order the execution of all of Bass’ previously-suspended term. ... Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s choice of sanction.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to continue or extend probation, or revoke it and order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Sodeman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-31(h)

Where, like here, the trial court finds that a defendant has violated a condition of his probation, it may (1) continue the probation with or without modifying the probation conditions; (2) extend the probationary period for up to one year; or (3) revoke the probation and order the execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at the initial hearing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... We find no abuse of discretion.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of part of a suspended sentence after repeated methamphetamine use violates probation.

Friend v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-12(h)

The trial court’s decision to revoke five years of Friend’s probation is not an unwarranted response to the violations he committed, especially given the trial court’s willingness to entertain a sentence modification if Friend addresses his substance abuse issues.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of part of a suspended sentence for a single probation violation.

Woliung v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-06-12(h)

Given that a court may revoke probation for a single probation violation, the trial court was well within its discretion when it sanctioned Woliung by ordering her to serve four years of her five-year suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits a court to revoke probation and order all or part of the sentence executed after a probation violation.

Sewell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-06-19(h)(3)

Revoking Sewell’s probation was not an abuse of discretion; indeed, revocation of probation is one of the options prescribed by the statute. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence when a person violates a probation condition before probation ends.

Chambers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-06-21(h)

A court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing if the court finds the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of that probationary period.

After a probation violation warrants revocation, subsection (h) permits the trial court to order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

D.J. Johns v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-06-26(h)

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 person’s 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).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence when a probation condition is violated before probation ends.

Matt Hansen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-06-28(h)

A court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing if the court finds the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of that probationary period.

Subsection (h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence when it finds a probation condition was violated before probation ends.

Gutzwiller v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-08-16(h)

A court may order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing if the court finds the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of that probationary period. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence when a probation violation warrants revocation.

Haas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-10-30(h)

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 person’s 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). ... Here, the State met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Haas violated the terms of his probation by failing to show up for his probation meetings; therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Haas’ probation and ordering Haas to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to order all or part of the remaining period executed.

Stanley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-11-06(h)

If the trial court finds that a person violated a condition of probation, then it may either continue the person on probation without modifying the conditions, extend the probationary period for up to one year beyond the original period, or order all or part of the remaining period to be executed. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). ... We find that the trial court was well within its discretion in granting the petition to revoke probation and ordering the remaining four and one-half years to be served as a sanction for Stanley’s probation violation.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court that revokes probation to order execution of part or all of the suspended sentence.

Odom v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-11-12(h)

Upon revoking probation, the trial court may impose one of several sanctions provided by statute: (1) continue the period of probation; (2) extend the length of the defendant’s period of probation; or (3) order the defendant to execute part or all of the suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after finding a probation violation that warrants revocation.

Overstreet v. State of Indiana · filed 2019-11-13(h)

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 person’s 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).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Richey v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-12-31(h)

Therefore, the trial court had the option of imposing one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue Richey’s probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) ... extend her 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.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a trial court to order execution of all or part of a previously suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Abner v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-15(h)

When a trial court determines a person has violated a condition of probation, the court may: (1) continue the person on probation; (2) extend the probationary period; and/or (3) order execution of all or part of the previously- suspended sentence.

After finding a probation violation, a court may revoke probation and order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Taylor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-24(h)

While it was within the trial court’s discretion to continue Taylor’s probation, with or without modifying the probation conditions, or to extend the probationary period for up to one year, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Taylor to serve his suspended sentence of six years in the DOC.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Fravel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-29(h)

After Fravel was found guilty of the Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana, the trial court could impose, in the current cause, one or more of the following sanctions: (1) continue Fravel’s probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend his 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 the initial sentencing.

After a probation violation, the court may order execution of all or part of the sentence suspended at initial sentencing.

Tyreoun D. Guy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-11-20(h)

... (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of the entire suspended sentence after a probation violation.

Foutch v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-17(h)

see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed upon the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing). ... The trial court acted well within its discretion.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence when a probation violation warrants revocation.

Horn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-11-26(h)

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 person’s 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). ... The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Horn’s probation and ordering execution of his previously suspended sentence.

After a probation violation, Section 35-38-2-3(h) allows the court to continue probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Porta v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-12-11(h)

If the trial court determines a probationer has violated a term of probation, then the 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 person’s 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. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h).

After a probation violation, subsection (h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-02-25(h)

Ultimately, when a court has identified a violation of a condition of probation, the court “may . . . [o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended.” I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). We discern no abuse of discretion here.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) gives trial courts broad discretion over sanctions for a probation violation and does not require consideration of a particular placement.

Christor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-05-13(h)

Under this statute, the discretion afforded the trial court is extremely broad. There is no obligation imposed upon the trial court to consider a particular placement, such as community corrections, a drug treatment program, or home incarceration.

Subsection (h) allows a court that finds a probation violation to continue or extend probation, or order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence.

Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-10-21(h)

Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(h) offers the trial court the following options when it finds a defendant has violated the terms of his probation: (1) “[c]ontinue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions[,]” (2) “[e]xtend the person’s probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period[,]” or (3) “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Thus, a trial court has great latitude to fashion the terms of a probation violation sanction.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after finding a probation violation.

Mujaahid v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-10-23(h)

We cannot say that the trial court ... abused its discretion in revoking Mujaahid’s probation and ordering him to serve the remainder of his previously-suspended sentence.

After finding a probation violation, a court may order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence; that choice is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Owens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-10-26(h)

Where the court finds a person has violated a condition of probation, the court may: (1) continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions; (2) extend the person’s probationary period for not more than one year beyond the original probationary period; or (3) order the execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h). ... We are not persuaded that the trial court’s decision was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.

After finding a probation violation, a trial court may order execution of all or part of the sentence originally suspended.

Ahnert v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-11-30(h)(3)

Upon finding that a defendant has violated a condition of his probation, the trial court may “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) (2020). ... Accordingly, the court’s order that Ahnert serve 180 days of his previously suspended sentence is supported by the record and is well within the trial court’s discretion.

Section 35-38-2-3(h) allows a court that finds a probation violation to order all or part of a previously suspended sentence executed.

Clemons v. State of Indiana · filed 2025-05-14(h)

Upon finding a probation violation, the trial court may: (1) continue the probation with or without modifying the conditions; (2) extend the probationary period for up to one year; or (3) order all or part of a previously suspended sentence to be executed. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... Given the number and nature of Clemons’s violations, the trial court’s decision to order execution of 544 days of Clemons’s previously suspended sentence was well within its discretion.

After finding a probation violation, a court may order execution of the entire suspended sentence; a new offense soon after probation begins, combined with an extensive criminal history and failed probation opportunities, can justify that sanction.

Sieg v. State of Indiana · filed 2025-10-28(h)

Following a finding that a defendant violated probation, a trial court has several options: (1) continue the defendant on probation; (2) extend the probationary period by up to one year; or (3) order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h). ... The trial court acted within its discretion in determining that Sieg’s immediate commission of a new drug offense, combined with his extensive criminal history and pattern of failed probation opportunities, warranted execution of the entire suspended sentence.

Section 35-38-2-3(h)(3) permits execution of a suspended sentence after a probation violation, but ordering the entire sentence can be an abuse of discretion when the violations are less serious and the circumstances favor a lesser sanction.

Marco Antono Perez, II v. State of Indiana · filed 2026-04-13(h)(3)

Here, though, given the less serious nature of the violations, the lack of additional misconduct, Perez’s acceptance of responsibility, and the State’s acknowledgment that the trial court should give Perez “some credit,” we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Perez to serve the entirety of his previously suspended sentence.

Subsection (h) permits a court that finds a probation violation to continue probation, extend it by up to one year, or order execution of some or all of the suspended sentence.

Lee v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-02-12(h)

If the trial court determines a probationer has violated a term of probation, then the 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 person’s 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.

After a probation violation, subsection (h) permits a trial court to revoke probation and order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence; repeated violations can justify that sanction.

Leach v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-15(h)

Given Leach’s repeated probation violations, we do not find the imposition of the suspended sentence to be an abuse of discretion.

A positive test may be treated as a probation violation only if the State proves the violation by a preponderance of the evidence.

Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-03-26

The State acknowledges that to the extent that the sentence Wilson objects to removes the State’s obligation to prove that he violated probation, applying the clause would violate his due process rights. Thus, to avoid any violation of Wilson’s due process rights, we remand with instructions to the trial court to amend the sentence at issue to read, “The defendant acknowledges that testing positive for any of the above may be deemed a violation of probation.”

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits a court to order execution of all or part of a suspended sentence after finding a probation violation.

Kress v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-04-08(h)

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) (listing three sanctions that may be imposed upon the finding of a violation: (1) continue the person on probation with or without modification; (2) extend the probationary period; or (3) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing). ... In sum, we conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion.

A probationer’s waiver of the right to counsel at a revocation hearing must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Sparks v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-09-17(f)

When a probationer proceeds without the benefit of counsel, the record must indicate that he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. ... We therefore conclude that Sparks knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Section 35-38-2-3(e) does not require a specific trial court finding that a probationer's waiver of counsel was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.

Stockwell v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-04-09(e)

Neither Hopper nor Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3(e) require a specific finding from the trial court.

A probationer may waive the right to counsel at a revocation hearing when the record shows the waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Hammerlund v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-05-17(e)

Taken as a whole, the record fails to establish that Hammerlund’s waiver of counsel was anything other than knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

A probationer may waive the right to counsel in revocation proceedings if the waiver is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Leehy v. State of Indiana · filed 2013-12-26(f)

These include “confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel.” I.C. § 35-38-2-3(f). ... When a defendant proceeds in a probation revocation proceeding without counsel, the record must reflect that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived that right. Butler, 951 N.E.2d at 259. ... Altogether, then, we cannot conclude that Leehy’s waiver of counsel was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.

Subsection (e) gives a defendant the right to counsel at a probation revocation hearing; the record must show that any waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Hatcher v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-07-13(e)

Although the public defender told the trial court that Hatcher desired to proceed pro se, the trial court conducted absolutely no questioning of Hatcher regarding that desire nor did it establish a record demonstrating that his desire to waive counsel and proceed pro se was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Thus, we reverse the trial court’s order revoking Hatcher’s probation and remand for a new revocation hearing.

Section 35-38-2-3(f) guarantees counsel in probation revocation proceedings; a probationer who proceeds without counsel must knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive that right.

Dean v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-06-15(f)

The right to representation by counsel is statutorily guaranteed to those who face revocation of their probation. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). And when a defendant proceeds without counsel, the record must reflect the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. ... Therefore, under the particular facts and circumstances of this case, we cannot say Dean’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

A probationer’s waiver of counsel at a revocation hearing must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, as shown by the record.

Allen v. State of Indiana · filed 2017-10-17(e)

If a petitioner makes the decision to proceed without the benefit of counsel, we must be confident that the record reflects that the right to counsel was voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived.

A probationer may proceed without counsel at a revocation hearing only after knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waiving the right to counsel.

William E. Glesing, III v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-04-23(e)

If a defendant elects to proceed without counsel, the record must reflect that he waived his right to counsel knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.

Probationers have the right to counsel in revocation proceedings, and the record must show a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver when they proceed without counsel.

Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-05-01(f)

These rights include representation by counsel. Id.; see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f) (2015) (probationers are entitled to representation by counsel). When a defendant proceeds without counsel, the record must reflect that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel. Butler, 951 N.E.2d at 259. ... Under these facts and circumstances, we conclude Thomas was sufficiently informed of the perils of waiving the right to counsel.

Subsection (e) gives a probationer the right to counsel in revocation proceedings; the record must show a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver before the probationer proceeds without counsel.

Orme v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-04-18(e)

A defendant is entitled to certain due process protections before the revocation of his or her probation. Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 255, 259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011); see also Ind. Code §35-38-2-3(e) (explaining that a probationer is entitled to confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel). When a defendant proceeds without the benefit of counsel, the record must reflect that he or she knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the right to counsel.

Subsection (e) protects the right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings, including a sanction hearing; revocation requires reversal when the record does not establish a valid waiver.

Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2018-04-18(e)

However, a petitioner is entitled to certain due process protections such as representation by counsel. Cooper v. State, 900 N.E.2d 64, 66 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); see also, I.C. § 35-38-2-3(e). ... Because the trial court did not establish that Mitchell understood that he had a right to counsel if he could not afford to retain his own, that he was waiving that right, and that certain dangers inure to proceeding pro se, we must conclude that its order revoking Mitchell’s previously-suspended sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for a new sanction hearing, at which Mitchell may be represented by counsel.

Section 35-38-2-3(f) entitles a defendant at a probation revocation hearing to counsel, a right the defendant may waive.

Ellis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-12-23(f)

A defendant in a probation revocation hearing is entitled to representation by counsel. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f) (2019). However, a defendant may waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se.

Subsection (f) gives a probationer a statutory right to counsel at a revocation hearing.

James A. Holder, Sr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2020-05-22(f)

Holder’s right to counsel at a revocation hearing is bestowed by statute rather than by constitution. See I.C. § 35-38-2-3(f).

Section 35-38-2-3(h) permits sanctions for a probation violation regardless of how much of the probationary period the person has completed.

Booth v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-07-12(h)

The probation violation statute does not distinguish the consequences based on the amount of time of the probationary period that has been completed.

Section 35-38-2-3(a)(1) permits a trial court to revoke probation for a single violation.

Rosenbourgh v. State of Indiana · filed 2025-09-19(a)(1)

A trial court may revoke a person’s probation for a single violation. ... Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Rosenbourgh’s probation on these grounds.

Admitted violations of probation conditions permit a trial court to revoke probation and impose sanctions.

Jefferson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2019-01-31

Based on this alone, the trial court had discretion to revoke his probation and impose sanctions. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3; Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that a violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to support revocation).

Section 35-38-2-3 permits revocation of probation for any violation of a probation condition.

Allen v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-07-31

As any violation of probation is sufficient to support a revocation, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked her probation.

Section 35-38-2-3 does not permit probation revocation based solely on the fact of an arrest.

Higgins v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-11-05

The trial court abused its discretion in revoking Higgins’s probation and ordering him to serve the entirety of his previously-suspended sentence at the DOC based solely upon the fact of an arrest.

Section 35-38-2-3(a)(1) permits a trial court to revoke probation when a condition is violated during the probationary period.

Timothy W. Woolum, Sr. v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-02-21(a)(1)

A trial court has discretion to revoke probation if a violation of a probation condition occurs during the probationary period. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1); Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667, 671 (Ind. 2009). ... The trial court determined that Woolum had violated his probation by testing positively for drugs and committing new criminal offenses and acted within its discretion in revoking Woolum’s probation and sentencing him to serve his executed sentence at the DOC.

Section 35-38-2-3(a) permits revocation of probation upon proof of a single violation of a probation condition.

Curts v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-08-08(a)

“When there is proof of a single violation of the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation.” Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a). Assuming, without deciding, that the three violations challenged by Curts are unsupported by sufficient evidence, seven violations remain. ... Based upon these violations, we affirm the revocation of Curts’s probation.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits a court to revoke probation when a probationer violates its conditions.

Collins v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-09-15

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.

Section 35-38-2-3(a)(1) permits revocation when a probationer violates a condition during the probationary period.

Shannon v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-04-14(a)(1)

It is well established that a person’s probation may be revoked if the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. I.C. § 35-38-2-3(a)(1).

Section 35-38-2-3(a) permits a trial court to revoke probation when a condition of probation is violated.

Steger v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-05-13(a)

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).

Section 35-38-2-3(a)(1) allows probation to be revoked for violation of a single probation condition.

Cain v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2015-03-18(a)(1)

Violation of a single term or condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1) (2012).

Section 35-38-2-3(a) requires evidence that the alleged violation occurred during the probationary period before probation may be revoked.

Trammell v. State of Indiana · filed 2015-11-13(a)

The standard of proof for revoking probation may be lower, but there still must be evidence from which the trial court can determine that an alleged violation occurred within the probationary period.

Section 35-38-2-3 permits revocation when a probationer violates a condition during the probationary period, including by committing a new offense.

Amber Lee Ryle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-12-06

A trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation if the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2015). ... This evidence is sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ryle committed the offense of theft, either as a principal or an accomplice, thereby violating a condition of her probation.

A single violation of a probation condition is sufficient to revoke probation.

Hester v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2016-06-01(a)(1)

Violation of a single term or condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.

Section 35-38-2-3(a) permits revocation when a person violates a probation condition during the probationary period.

Millen v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-02-22(a)

A trial court may revoke a person’s probation if the person violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a).

A criminal conviction is sufficient to establish that the probationer committed a crime for purposes of finding a probation violation.

White v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) · filed 2017-10-18(f)

First, the strength of that evidence is irrelevant; the mere proof of conviction, regardless of the strength of the State’s evidence, gave the trial court all it needed to find a probation violation.

Section 35-38-2-3 does not require a court to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances when imposing a sentence in a probation revocation proceeding.

Scholtes v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-09-24

However, trial courts are not required under Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 to balance “aggravating or mitigating circumstances when imposing sentence in a probation revocation proceeding.”

Section 35-38-2-3 does not require a trial court to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances when imposing a sanction for a probation violation.

Morgan v. State of Indiana · filed 2012-12-31

However, Section 35-38-2-3 does not require a trial court to balance aggravators and mitigators when imposing a sentence in a probation revocation proceeding.