Shaun S. Nesbit v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 84A01-1611-CR-2704

In 2012, Shaun S. Nesbit pled guilty to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine and received a 14-year sentence: 6 years executed, 8 years suspended to probation.
Over the probationary period, multiple probation-violation notices were filed against Nesbit for new offenses, positive drug tests, and failing to report.
Nesbit admitted the violations in exchange for dismissal of new charges and asked to remain on probation if permitted to enter long-term drug treatment.
The trial court rejected treatment as an alternative and ordered execution of the full previously suspended 8-year sentence in the Department of Correction (DOC).
Nesbit appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow long-term substance-abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering execution of the suspended sentence after probation violation	State: court acted within discretion to revoke probation and order execution	Nesbit: should be allowed into long-term drug treatment instead of DOC	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; DOC term ordered

Jones v. State, 838 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard of review for probation-revocation sentencing is abuse of discretion)
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (trial court has considerable leeway after initially granting probation)
Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (court may order execution of suspended sentence upon probation violation)
Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286 (Ind. 2008) (sanctions for probation violation are not reviewed for inappropriateness under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B))