Jeffrey A. Bowles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 06A05-1702-CR-411

In 2003 Bowles was convicted of aggravated battery (Class B) and criminal recklessness (Class D); in 2004 he received a 20-year sentence with 10 years executed and 10 years suspended to probation.
The trial court did not set probation terms at sentencing; Bowles was released in Feb 2008 and began reporting to probation though terms had not yet been entered.
In March 2010 the court (with Bowles represented and not objecting) informed him in open court and in writing of probation conditions and the parties agreed the ten-year probation term would start then; Bowles did not appeal.
Between 2009 and 2015 Bowles admitted multiple probation violations, received short jail sanctions (credited as time served), and was repeatedly returned to probation; in 2015–2016 new Clinton County charges (two causes) prompted petitions to revoke.
The trial court found Bowles violated probation by committing new crimes (based on guilty pleas in the Clinton County causes) and at a sanctions hearing ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended ten-year sentence.
Bowles appealed, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to set probation terms more than two years after completion of the executed sentence and thus could not revoke for violations, and (2) the court abused its discretion by ordering execution of the suspended sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bowles validly violated probation when terms were set post-sentencing	State: Bowles was advised of terms in 2010, acquiesced, and committed new crimes within statutory period; commission of new crimes is an automatic violation	Bowles: Court lacked authority to set probation conditions more than two years after completion of executed sentence, so probation (and revocation) invalid	Court: Denied — terms were entered in open court with counsel present, Bowles acquiesced, and new crimes are automatic probation violations; revocation proper
Whether executing the suspended sentence was an abuse of discretion	State: Serial criminal history, repeated violations, and convictions in Clinton County justified executing suspended time	Bowles: Trial court improperly relied on past/dismissed violations and failed to explain why recent treatment completion didn’t counsel for alternatives	Court: Denied — sentencing on revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion and here record supported execution of suspended sentence given lengthy criminal history and repeated failures to rehabilitate; no improper factors shown

Ratliff v. State, 546 N.E.2d 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (statute requires court to specify probation conditions in the record at time of placing defendant on probation)
Atkins v. State, 546 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (purpose of specifying conditions is notice and to prohibit imposing additional conditions after sentencing; commission of new crime is automatically a probation violation)
Jaynes v. State, 437 N.E.2d 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (new criminal conduct need not be expressly listed as a probation condition to constitute a violation)
Jones v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for sanctioning after probation revocation)
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (trial court has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed after probation is granted)
Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (if revocation petition is filed within probationary period, court may order execution of suspended sentence)
Puckett v. State, 956 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discussion of improper consideration of dismissed violations in sentencing)
Castillo v. State, 67 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (detailed sentencing statement not required when reinstating a portion of an already imposed sentence)