Mark Allen Price, Jr. v. State of Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 1 of 11
Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 65(E), the trial court and parties shall not take any action in
reliance upon this memorandum decision until it is certified .
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not
binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value
or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
I N 	T H E
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Mark Allen Price, Jr.,
Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana,
Appellee-Plaintiff.
October 15, 2026
Court of Appeals Case No.
26A-CR-1055
Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
The Honorable
Katie Melnick, Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49D32-1502-F2-4731

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 2 of 11
Memorandum Decision by Senior Judge Najam,
Judges May and Weissmann concur.
Najam, Senior Judge.
Statement of the Case
[1] 	Mark Allen Price, Jr. appeals, challenging the trial court’s decision that he serve
three years of his remaining five-year suspended sentence executed in the
Department of Correction (DOC) as a sanction for his probation violation.
Price admitted that he violated a term of his probation by using marijuana. On
appeal, he contends that the sanction is not commensurate with the violation.
After considering the record, however, we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion. Thus, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] 	On June 9, 2016, a jury found Price guilty of carrying a handgun without a
license. After waiving his right to be tried by a jury in phase two, Price was
found guilty of Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious
violent felon.
[3] 	Prior to sentencing, the court ordered the preparation of a presentence
investigation report. That report showed that, as a juvenile, Price was first
arrested and adjudicated a delinquent when he was fourteen years old. He was
adjudicated a delinquent twice for what would be misdemeanor offenses if

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 3 of 11
committed by an adult. And he was twice adjudicated a delinquent for what
would be felony offenses if committed by an adult. The report additionally
showed that he had violated probation four times as a juvenile. As an adult,
Price accumulated eight known arrests, two misdemeanor convictions, and one
felony conviction. He was seventeen years old at the time of his first arrest and
was nineteen years old at the time of his first conviction as an adult.
[4] 	After considering this history, the trial court sentenced Price to seven years with
two years executed and five years suspended to probation. One of the standard
conditions of probation was that Price “refrain from the use of illegal drugs or
any controlled substance (without a valid prescription).” Appellant’s App.
Conf. Vol. II, p. 213 (Notice of Violation).1
Another standard term of Price’s
probation was that he would refrain from being charged with another criminal
offense. Id. at 177 (Notice of Violation).2
[5] 	On January 2, 2019, the State filed a Notice of Violation alleging that on
October 18, 2018 Price was charged in federal court with being a felon in
possession of ammunition and with two counts of being a felon in possession of
1 The conditions of Price’s probation are not part of the record in this appeal. However, Price does not
contest the fact that this was a term and condition of his probation.
2 Again, Price does not contest the fact that this was a term and condition of his probation. And he does not
contest that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation by being charged with and subsequently
convicted of the federal weapons-related offenses.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 4 of 11
a firearm. The State and Price entered into an agreed resolution whereby Price
would continue serving probation in the present case.
[6] 	On March 10, 2026, while serving probation in both this case and the federal
case, a Notice of Violation was filed in the present case alleging Price tested
positive for drug use, specifically THC, after smoking marijuana. The State
filed an additional Notice of Violation alleging that Price attempted to falsify
the results of his drug test. At the evidentiary hearing, Price admitted to using
marijuana. He testified that he had received a medical diagnosis of a condition
he believed was terminal, and he used marijuana out of mental health concerns.
Specifically, Price said that he turned to illegal drug use because he felt
overwhelmed. Additionally, he explained that he subsequently received an
updated diagnosis that his condition was treatable, and he characterized his
drug use as a one-time lapse. Price did not support his testimony in mitigation
with medical documentation. The trial court found that Price had violated his
probation.
[7] 	Next, the court turned to the second step of the probation violation hearing, the
step during which the court determines the appropriate sanction for the
probation violation. The trial court’s written statement shows its decision to
revoke Price’s probation because of the failed drug screen. Appellant’s App.
Conf. Vol. II, p. 235. As for the sanction, the court noted that this was not
Price’s first violation, that the origins of this case stemmed from a weapons-
related offense, and that the first of his two probation violations was for
another, federal weapons-related offense, resulting in a conviction. The court

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 5 of 11
ordered Price to serve three years of the previously suspended five-year
sentence. Price now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] 	Price alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing three years of
his previously suspended sentence as a sanction after revoking his probation
based on his admission that he violated probation by using marijuana and
testing positive for THC. He argues that the trial court’s discussion of his prior
probation violation resulting in a conviction for a federal weapons-related
offense and the weapons-related origins of the present case suggests that the
court’s sanction was not based solely on the facts before it, namely, Price’s
admission to the use of marijuana. Thus, he contends that the court’s sanction
was an abuse of discretion because it was clearly against the logic and effect of
the facts and circumstances before the court.
[9] 	Price admitted to violating the terms of his probation by using marijuana.
Thus, on review, we turn to the second step of our analysis, the determination
of whether the violation warrants revocation of probation and, if so, the
appropriate sanction to be imposed. “[E]ven a probationer who admits the
allegations against him must still be given an opportunity to offer mitigating
evidence suggesting that the violation does not warrant revocation.” Woods v.
State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Here, Price was given the opportunity
to explain that he had received a medical diagnosis in mid-February of 2026
that overwhelmed him because he believed that his condition was terminal. He

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 6 of 11
also told the court that his drug use “was a one-time thing.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 13.
He explained that he subsequently learned his condition was treatable. Price
asked the court to continue him on probation with “some type of treatment or
more frequent tests.” Id. at 15. And he offered evidence of current employment
and a support system, including his family and a pastor.
[10] 	The Notice of Violation in Price’s case alleged that “Price submitted a drug
screen which tested positive for THC on 3/10/2026.” Appellant’s App. Conf.
Vol. II, p. 213. Under the section titled “Additional Information,” the
probation officer included the following information:
Mr. Price submitted negative drug screens on 05/02/2025,
06/02/2025, 07/03/2025, 08/18/2025, 11/10/2025,
12/08/2025, and 01/06/2026. He submitted drug screens,
which tested positive for THC on 09/11/2025, 10/20/2025, and
02/19/2026. His prior issues of non-compliance were addressed
administratively by probation.
Id. (emphasis added).
[11] 	Price did not contest this additional information at the hearing. Instead, Price
acknowledged his other prior positive drug screens. His counsel said, “it looks
like you had some negative screens, and then you had some positive screens.
So, obviously you would not—you would have to stop having positive screens.”
Tr. Vol. II, p. 18. Price replied, “Yes, ma’am.” Id. In the argument to the
court about sanctions, Price’s counsel argued in favor of continued probation by
noting that Price is the head of the household, has two mid-teenaged children,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 7 of 11
is employed, and has been on federal probation for nearly two years without a
violation. Counsel said, “at least it’s weed and it’s not some worse thing.
Although, weed is still illegal. But he does—he does need to be in treatment to
deal with that, and also to deal with stress, and other things that he’s had to
deal with recently.” Id. at 20. Nevertheless, Price characterizes his probation
violation as “an isolated lapse in judgment.” Appellant’s Br. p. 10. The record
instead reveals a pattern of conduct involving positive drug screens for illegal
drug use.
[12] 	The State argued in favor of revocation of probation and the imposition of the
sanction of three years executed in the DOC. The State noted that this was a
second violation of probation for Price and argued that because the first
violation, a federal weapons offense, was resolved by continued probation, his
probation should be revoked. The trial court also emphasized that this case
stems from a weapons-related offense, revoked Price’s probation, and ordered
the three-year executed sentence.
[13] 	First, a trial court may revoke a person’s probation if the record shows that the
person commits an additional crime. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(a) (2022).
Possession of marijuana is at least a Class B misdemeanor criminal offense.
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11 (2018). But possession of marijuana alone whether or
not charged is sufficient to constitute a probation violation. Therefore, the trial
court’s decision to revoke Price’s probation is amply supported by the record.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 8 of 11
[14] 	We next turn to the three-year executed sentence sanction the court imposed.
Although the trial court stated that this case originated from a weapons-related
conviction and that Price had a previous probation violation for a federal
weapons-related conviction, it was Price’s admission to illegal drug use that
triggered the sanction determination in the present case. While due process
requires a written statement of the reasons for revoking probation, see Medicus v.
State, 664 N.E.2d 1163, 1164 (Ind. 1996), there is no due process requirement
for a specific statement of the reasons for the sanction imposed following the
revocation of probation. See Castillo v. State, 67 N.E.3d 661, 665 (Ind. Ct. App.
2017), trans. denied. Thus, we may affirm the sanction imposed following the
revocation of probation on any ground supported by the record. Id.
[15] 	Recently, in Sieg v. State, we addressed a claim that the trial court violated the
defendant’s due process rights by making reference to unproven probation
violation allegations when revoking the defendant’s probation. 271 N.E.3d 620
(Ind. Ct. App. 2025). After reviewing the record, we determined that while
“the court acknowledged other probation violations had been alleged, it
considered those allegations only when determining the sanction for his
probation violation arising from his commission of the new offense.” Id. at 623-
24.3
“[T]he trial court’s reference to the unproven allegations occurred solely in
the context of determining the appropriate sanction.” Id. at 624. “This inquiry
3 Here, the trial court did not make reference to consideration of Price’s prior pattern of positive drug screens
before revoking his probation or when imposing a sanction after revoking his probation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 9 of 11
followed the trial court’s separate determination that [the defendant] had
violated the terms of his probation by committing a new criminal offense[.]” Id.
Thus, “[a]lthough due process requires that probation violations be proven or
admitted, sentencing decisions following a valid revocation finding involve
broader discretionary considerations.” Id. We concluded that the court did not
abuse its discretion by considering the unproven probation violation allegations
when considering the appropriate sanction for the defendant’s probation
revocation. Id. at 624-25.
[16] 	Here, as we have noted, the record shows a pattern of three other recent drug
screens which were positive for THC and which Price did not contest. And he
agreed with his counsel’s representation that he would like additional treatment
and testing to address his drug use. “If counsel makes a clear and unequivocal
admission of fact, he or she has made a judicial admission that is binding upon
his or her client.” Bank v. Huizar, 178 N.E.3d 326, 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022).
“A judicial admission ‘is an admission in a current pleading or made during the
course of trial; it is conclusive upon the party making it and relieves the
opposing party of the duty to present evidence on that issue.’” Id. (quoting
Weinberger v. Boyer, 956 N.E.2d 1095, 1105 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied).
Thus, the record supports the trial court’s choice of a three-year executed
sentence based on Price’s admission of his recent history of numerous positive
drug screens, indicating that his violation of probation for a positive drug screen
was not “a one-time thing” as he had represented. Tr. Vol. II, p. 13.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 10 of 11
[17] 	Therefore, based on the record before us, we cannot conclude that the trial
court abused its discretion by imposing the three-year executed sentence as a
sanction for Price’s probation violation after the court revoked Price’s
probation.
Conclusion
[18] 	The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Price’s probation and
imposing a three-year executed sentence as a sanction for the violation. Price
was afforded the opportunity to present mitigating evidence after admitting he
violated the conditions of his probation. And he admitted that he had recent
positive drug screens, establishing that his violation was not a one-time
occurrence. Thus, we affirm.
[19] 	Affirmed.
May, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Talisha Griffin
Marion County Public Defenders Agency
Indianapolis, Indiana
Timothy J. O’Connor
O’Connor & Auersch
Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 26A-CR-1055 | October 15, 2026 	Page 11 of 11
Kelly A. Loy
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Jennifer Anwarzai
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana