Nicholas L. Porter, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Bartholomew Circuit Court Trial Court Cause No.
03C01-1507-F6-3534 The Honorable Kelly S. Benjamin, Judge
Attorney for Appellant Christopher L. Clerc Columbus, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
of Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
Nicholas Porter ("Porter") pled guilty to Theft, as
a level 6 felony. He received a sentence of two and one-half
years, with two years suspended to probation. Following the
revocation of his probation, Porter appeals, presenting the
sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion
in imposing a probation violation sanction. We affirm.
and Procedural History
On January 19, 2016, Porter pled guilty to one count of
Theft. He was ordered to serve two and one-half years in the
Bartholomew County Jail, but two years were suspended to
probation. He was also ordered to pay restitution to the
victim and complete substance abuse treatment.
On March 27, 2018, the State petitioned to revoke
Porter's probation. The petition, as amended, alleged
that Porter had missed probation appointments and had
committed a new criminal offense while on probation. A
hearing was conducted on July 16, 2018. Porter admitted that
he had committed a new criminal offense, unauthorized entry
of a motor vehicle. The trial court ordered that Porter serve
the two years of his sentence that was previously suspended.
He now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Porter argues that the sanction imposed is unduly harsh. More
particularly, he contends that he should receive credit for
his admission, akin to mitigating weight afforded a guilty
plea in sentencing proceedings, and that the trial court
should have issued a statement to that effect.
Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court
discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is
entitled. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188
(Ind. 2007). The trial court determines the conditions of
probation, and if the conditions are violated, the trial
court may impose one of three types of sanctions: (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. See
Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h); Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d
We review a sanction imposed following revocation of
probation for an abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse
of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against
the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before
the trial court. Id. Violation of a single condition
of placement is sufficient to revoke placement. Gosha v.
State, 873 N.E.2d 660, 663 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007).
Porter was afforded the rehabilitative opportunity to
participate in substance abuse treatment as a probationer.
Evidence adduced at the probation revocation hearing
indicates that he failed to maintain contact with the
probation department and instead committed one or more new
criminal offenses. He had a history of committing property
crimes and had violated probation in the past. As Porter has
displayed an unwillingness to avail himself of ...