Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2026)

Violation of conditions of probation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 3. (a) The court may revoke a person's probation if:

(1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period; and

(2) the petition to revoke probation is filed during the probationary period or before the earlier of the following:

(A) One (1) year after the termination of probation.

(B) Forty-five (45) days after the state receives notice of the violation.

     (b) When a petition is filed charging a violation of a condition of probation, the court may:

(1) order a summons to be issued to the person to appear; or

(2) order a warrant for the person's arrest if there is a risk of the person's fleeing the jurisdiction or causing harm to others.

     (c) The issuance of a summons or warrant tolls the period of probation until the final determination of the charge.

     (d) Except as provided in subsection (e), the court shall conduct a hearing concerning the alleged violation. The court may admit the person to bail pending the hearing. A person who is not admitted to bail pending the hearing may not be held in jail for more than fifteen (15) days without a hearing on the alleged violation of probation.

     (e) A person may admit to a violation of probation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing after being offered the opportunity to consult with an attorney. If the person admits to a violation and requests to waive the probation violation hearing, the probation officer shall advise the person that by waiving the right to a probation violation hearing the person forfeits the rights provided in subsection (f). The sanction administered must follow the schedule of progressive probation violation sanctions adopted by the judicial conference of Indiana under IC 11-13-1-8.

     (f) Except as provided in subsection (e), the state must prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. The evidence shall be presented in open court. The person is entitled to confrontation, cross-examination, and representation by counsel.

     (g) Probation may not be revoked for failure to comply with conditions of a sentence that imposes financial obligations on the person unless the person recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to pay.

     (h) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

     (i) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition of home detention at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke probation is filed within the probationary period, the court shall:

(1) order one (1) or more sanctions as set forth in subsection (h); and

(2) provide accrued time and good time credit, if applicable, as set forth under IC 35-38-2.5-5.

     (j) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition during any time before the termination of the period, and the petition is filed under subsection (a) after the probationary period has expired, the court may:

(1) reinstate the person's probationary period, with or without enlarging the conditions, if the sum of the length of the original probationary period and the reinstated probationary period does not exceed the length of the maximum sentence allowable for the offense that is the basis of the probation; or

(2) order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of the initial sentencing.

     (k) If the court finds that the person has violated a condition of home detention during any time before termination of the period, and the petition is filed under subsection (a) after the probation period has expired, the court shall:

(1) order a sanction as set forth in subsection (j); and

(2) provide accrued time and good time credit, if applicable, as set forth under IC 35-38-2.5-5.

     (l) A judgment revoking probation is a final appealable order.

     (m) Failure to pay fines or costs (including fees) required as a condition of probation may not be the sole basis for commitment to the department of correction.

     (n) Failure to pay fees or costs assessed against a person under IC 33-40-3-6, IC 33-37-2-3(e), or IC 35-33-7-6 is not grounds for revocation of probation.

As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.67-1990, SEC.12; P.L.214-1991, SEC.1; P.L.240-1991(ss2), SEC.94; P.L.1-1992, SEC.179; P.L.216-1996, SEC.15; P.L.166-2001, SEC.1; P.L.98-2004, SEC.152; P.L.13-2005, SEC.1; P.L.156-2007, SEC.5; P.L.48-2008, SEC.1; P.L.106-2010, SEC.11; P.L.147-2012, SEC.10; P.L.74-2015, SEC.21.

 

IC 35-38-2.5Chapter 2.5. Home Detention

 

           35-38-2.5-1Offenders to which chapter applies
           35-38-2.5-2"Home"
           35-38-2.5-2.3"Constant supervision"
           35-38-2.5-2.5"Contract agency"
           35-38-2.5-3"Monitoring device"
           35-38-2.5-4"Offender"
           35-38-2.5-4.5"Security risk"
           35-38-2.5-4.7"Violent offender"
           35-38-2.5-5Home detention as condition of probation
           35-38-2.5-5.5Home detention
           35-38-2.5-6Orders for home detention; contents
           35-38-2.5-7Home detention; where permitted
           35-38-2.5-8Home detention fees
           35-38-2.5-9Responsibility for food, housing, and related costs
           35-38-2.5-10Violation of home detention; violent offender status; contract agencies
           35-38-2.5-11Monitoring devices; information to offender
           35-38-2.5-12Supervision of violent offender on home detention
           35-38-2.5-13Repealed

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 663 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: Billy Luke v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Billy Luke v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “[52] At the time Luke was placed on probation, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (a) provided: “The court may revoke a person’s probation if: (1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period .”
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013). · cites it 10× “Acts 1861 , and reenacted as Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3 by P.L. 311-1983 § 3, 1983 Ind.”
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007). · cites it 6× “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-38-2-3 (West 2007); Goonen v.”
Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “Indiana has codified the due process requirements at Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3 by requiring that an evidentiary hearing be held on the revocation and providing for confrontation and eross-ex-amination of witnesses and representation by counsel.”
Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “When there is proof of a single violation of the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation.”
Pugh v. State, 804 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 30× “Generally speaking, as long as the trial court follows the procedures outlined in Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3, the court may properly order execution of a suspended sentence.”
Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010). · cites it 10× “" Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f). As provided by Indiana's statutory scheme, probation may be revoked for violation of a probation condition but, for violations of financial conditions, only if the probationer recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to pay.”
Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “Therefore, Collins argues, he was entitled to all of the due process that would have been afforded in a probation violation proceeding under Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 (2008). [3] The State counters that *710 mere modification of the terms of probation, as opposed to a…”
Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “When a probationer admits to the violations, the procedural due process safeguards and an evidentiary hearing are not necessary.”
Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1992). · cites it 12× “*147 Probation revocation is governed by Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-2-3 (West 1986). The statute does not specify who is to file a petition for probation revocation but common practice is that it may be filed by either the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney.”
Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “Under the statutory authority under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (g), three sanctions are available to the trial court for probation violations: 1) continue the person on probation with no modifications to the probationary conditions, 2) extend the probationary period, or 3) order…”
Robert Scott Hilligoss v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “A probationer’s due process rights are codified in Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3, which provides in relevant part as follows: *1231 (e) A person may admit to a violation of probation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing after being offered the opportunity to…”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(1) — 1 case
Billy Luke v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[52] At the time Luke was placed on probation, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (a) provided: “The court may revoke a person’s probation if: (1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period .”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(F) — 1 case
Childers v. State, 656 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a) — 31 cases
Billy Luke v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “[52] At the time Luke was placed on probation, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (a) provided: “The court may revoke a person’s probation if: (1) the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period .”
Lucas H. Jackson v. State of Indiana, 6 N.E.3d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
Damien D. Murphy v. State of Indiana, 113 N.E.3d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Devon D. Dokes, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 971 N.E.2d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(1) — 7 cases
Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f). As provided by Indiana's statutory scheme, probation may be revoked for violation of a probation condition but, for violations of financial conditions, only if the probationer recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to pay.”
Crump v. State, 740 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Baker v. State, 894 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(2) — 1 case
Joseph D. Reed v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(2)(A) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(2)(B) — 3 cases
Crump v. State, 740 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Sharp v. State, 807 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Ashley v. State, 717 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(b) — 1 case
Gilreath v. State, 748 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a)(l) — 2 cases
Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 2012).
Smith v. State, 945 N.E.2d 740 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(b) — 6 cases
Sharp v. State, 817 N.E.2d 644 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Damien D. Murphy v. State of Indiana, 113 N.E.3d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Phillips v. State, 611 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
McRoy v. State, 794 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Mary K. Davis v. State of Indiana, 35 N.E.3d 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(c) — 11 cases
Paul Hardy v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Robert Scott Hilligoss v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “A probationer’s due process rights are codified in Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3, which provides in relevant part as follows: *1231 (e) A person may admit to a violation of probation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing after being offered the opportunity to…”
Kincaid v. State, 757 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
Damien D. Murphy v. State of Indiana, 113 N.E.3d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
Dawson v. State, 751 N.E.2d 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(d) — 17 cases
Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1992). “*147 Probation revocation is governed by Ind. Code Ann. § 35-38-2-3 (West 1986). The statute does not specify who is to file a petition for probation revocation but common practice is that it may be filed by either the probation officer or the prosecuting attorney.”
Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Therefore, Collins argues, he was entitled to all of the due process that would have been afforded in a probation violation proceeding under Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 (2008). [3] The State counters that *710 mere modification of the terms of probation, as opposed to a…”
Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). “When there is proof of a single violation of the conditions of probation, the court may revoke probation.”
Paul Sparks v. State of Indiana, 983 N.E.2d 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Terrell v. State, 886 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(e) — 49 cases
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013). “Acts 1861 , and reenacted as Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3 by P.L. 311-1983 § 3, 1983 Ind.”
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999).
Runyon v. State, 939 N.E.2d 613 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (f). As provided by Indiana's statutory scheme, probation may be revoked for violation of a probation condition but, for violations of financial conditions, only if the probationer recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally fails to pay.”
Lightcap v. State, 863 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Butler v. State, 951 N.E.2d 255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f) — 29 cases
Mark Lee Votra v. State of Indiana, 121 N.E.3d 1108 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Johnson v. State, 692 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110 (Ind. 2012).
Donald Murdock v. State of Indiana, 10 N.E.3d 1265 (Ind. 2014).
Snowberger v. State, 938 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g) — 57 cases
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007). “Ind.Code Ann. § 35-38-2-3 (West 2007); Goonen v.”
Abernathy v. State, 852 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Under the statutory authority under Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (g), three sanctions are available to the trial court for probation violations: 1) continue the person on probation with no modifications to the probationary conditions, 2) extend the probationary period, or 3) order…”
Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Indiana has codified the due process requirements at Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3 by requiring that an evidentiary hearing be held on the revocation and providing for confrontation and eross-ex-amination of witnesses and representation by counsel.”
Pugh v. State, 804 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Generally speaking, as long as the trial court follows the procedures outlined in Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3, the court may properly order execution of a suspended sentence.”
Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013). “Acts 1861 , and reenacted as Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3 by P.L. 311-1983 § 3, 1983 Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(1) — 1 case
Pugh v. State, 804 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “Generally speaking, as long as the trial court follows the procedures outlined in Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3, the court may properly order execution of a suspended sentence.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(2) — 1 case
Bailey v. State, 731 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(3) — 13 cases
Milliner v. State, 890 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “Indiana has codified the due process requirements at Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3 by requiring that an evidentiary hearing be held on the revocation and providing for confrontation and eross-ex-amination of witnesses and representation by counsel.”
Podlusky v. State, 839 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Eaton v. State, 825 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(g)(8) — 3 cases
Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “When a probationer admits to the violations, the procedural due process safeguards and an evidentiary hearing are not necessary.”
Podlusky v. State, 839 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Balding v. State, 812 N.E.2d 169 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) — 98 cases
Wilkie v. State, 813 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
Andrew Wann v. State of Indiana, 997 N.E.2d 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Paul Hardy v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 833 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
Casie S. Rudisel v. State of Indiana, 31 N.E.3d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Joshua T. Trammell v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(2) — 5 cases
Robert Scott Hilligoss v. State of Indiana, 45 N.E.3d 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “A probationer’s due process rights are codified in Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3, which provides in relevant part as follows: *1231 (e) A person may admit to a violation of probation and waive the right to a probation violation hearing after being offered the opportunity to…”
Steven Palmer v. State of Indiana, 774 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. 2002).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) — 50 cases
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(i) — 3 cases
Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Cox v. State, 686 N.E.2d 181 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(j) — 1 case
Damien D. Murphy v. State of Indiana, 113 N.E.3d 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(k) — 3 cases
Cooper v. State, 917 N.E.2d 667 (Ind. 2009).
Huffman v. State, 822 N.E.2d 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Smith v. State, 904 N.E.2d 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(m) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.