Lucas Thomas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 48A02-1608-CR-1807

In 2009 Thomas pleaded guilty to child molesting; received concurrent 15-year sentences with 5 years suspended to probation and special sex-offender conditions.
Conditions included mandatory sex-offender treatment, medication compliance, no contact with minors, internet restrictions, notification of intimate relationships, activity logs, and restrictions on certain employment.
Thomas began probation in March 2014; within five months he failed to register as a sex offender, admitted that violation, and was placed on one year home detention.
In June 2016 a Madison County probation officer alleged multiple new violations: failure to complete SOMM treatment, missed appointments, stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, unauthorized internet use and dating-site profiles, unapproved employment in private residences, contact with minors (including a family outing to a reservoir), and failure to report the contact or log activities.
At the revocation hearing probation officer introduced a termination/progress report from Meridian (State’s Exh. 2); Officer Brown testified to receiving it and to Thomas’s admissions; Facebook excerpts and Thomas’s own testimony corroborated many allegations.
The trial court found probation violations by a preponderance of the evidence, admitted State’s Exh. 2, revoked probation, and ordered Thomas to serve the full five-year suspended sentence in the DOC.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Whether hearsay (Meridian progress report/letter) was admissible in probation revocation	Hearsay admissible in revocation proceedings if reliable; report was routine monthly progress sent to PO and corroborated by Thomas’s admissions and online evidence	Admission violated due-process confrontation rights and lacked business-record foundation or affidavit establishing trustworthiness	Court affirmed admission: hearsay bore substantial indicia of reliability and was corroborated by Thomas’s admissions and exhibits
Whether full execution of suspended 5-year sentence was an abuse of discretion	Revocation sanction lawful; court may execute suspended sentence when defendant violates probation; Thomas repeatedly and blatantly violated numerous conditions	Thomas argued community corrections were viable and mitigation (medical side effects, unintentional log omission) warranted a lesser sanction	Court affirmed: multiple, serious, repeated probation violations justified executing the suspended sentence

Robinson v. State, 955 N.E.2d 228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (probation is a matter of grace; revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (same principle regarding probation’s discretionary nature)
Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (standard of review for revocation and evidentiary limits)
Watters v. State, 22 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (probation revocation procedures are flexible; strict rules of evidence not required)
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999) (hearsay may be admitted in revocation if reliable; due-process limitations)
Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review of sentencing in revocation proceedings)
Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. 2007) (trial court should explain why hearsay is sufficiently reliable when admitted)
Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing; decision must not be contrary to logic and effect of facts)
United States v. Kelley, 446 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) (framework for explaining why hearsay bears substantial guarantees of trustworthiness)