Amber Lee Ryle v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 48A02-1603-CR-594

In 2009 Amber Lee Ryle pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property and one count of forgery; total sentence seven years with five years suspended to probation.
After multiple probation violations, in 2013 the court revoked a five-year suspension and ordered two years executed, staying the remaining three years if Ryle reported monthly and committed no new offenses for one year.
The State later alleged Ryle committed a new theft on June 17, 2015, and filed an amended notice charging violation of the probation condition prohibiting new crimes.
Loss-prevention officer Amanda McIlwain observed Ryle and another woman select clothing, enter dressing rooms, exit without the clothing, then pay only for sandals; McIlwain found unpaid clothing in the companion’s purse.
McIlwain testified Ryle admitted she picked out the items and gave them to the companion; the trial court found a probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence and ordered the previously stayed three years executed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sufficient evidence supports finding Ryle committed a new theft and therefore violated probation	The State: eyewitness testimony and Ryle’s admission show she knowingly exerted unauthorized control over Walmart property with intent to deprive the store	Ryle: lack of security video and her testimony that she didn’t know the companion was stealing (argues insufficiency)	The court: evidence (observations + admission) is sufficient; conviction not required in probation revocation; affirmed

Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (probation is an alternative to commitment and defendant is not entitled to probation)
Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (probation revocation is civil; State must prove violation by preponderance; conviction of a new crime not required)