FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT:    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

STEVEN C. SMITH    JEFFREY A. MODISETT
PATRICK R. RAGAINS    Attorney General of Indiana
JANE G. COTTON
Smith, Ragains & Cotton     KIMBERLY MACDONALD
Anderson, Indiana    Deputy Attorney General
            Indianapolis, Indiana

LONNIE D. MORGAN,              )
                                    )
    Appellant-Defendant,            )
                                    )
        vs.                         )    No. 48A04-9707-CR-307
                                    )
STATE OF INDIANA,                   )
                                    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.             )

                                

    II. Whether there is sufficient evidence to support the revocation.

probation officer, Victor Hill, apparently transferred Morgan's probation in December 1996.See footnote 1 At that time, Hill told Morgan to call him on January 23, 1997. Morgan never called.
    In February 1997, Hill learned that Morgan had returned to Indiana. Hill telephoned Morgan and asked him to report to the probation department. When he met with Hill, Morgan told the probation officer that he was not moving to Georgia. According to Morgan, he had decided to move to Arizona. Hill told Morgan to call him in one week. When Morgan failed to contact Hill, the probation officer attempted to telephone Morgan, and eventually sent Morgan a letter explaining that a warrant for his arrest would be issued if he did not report to the probation office. Morgan did not respond to Hill's letter.
    On April 3, 1997, Hill filed a notice of probation violation wherein he alleged that Morgan had violated his probation by, among other things, committing the crime of battery on April 2, 1997, and failing to timely report to the probation office, complete community service and pay probation user's fees. After a hearing, the court found that Morgan had violated the aforementioned terms of his probation and ordered Morgan to serve his six year sentence.

objection in the trial court. See Lock v. State, 567 N.E.2d 1160 (Ind. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 991, 112 S.Ct. 1686, 118 L.Ed.2d 400 (1992).
    Waiver notwithstanding, Morgan's arguments lack merit. First, this court has previously determined that a probation officer has the authority to initiate proceedings to revoke probation. See Noethtich v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1078 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
    Second, in support of his contention that Hill lacked the authority to initiate revocation proceedings, Morgan directs us to Ind.Code 11-13-4-1, which governs out-of-state transfers of probation. Specifically, Morgan points to I.C. 11-13-4-1(2) which provides in part that "each receiving state will assume the duties of visitation of and supervision over probationers . . . ." According to Morgan, the "phrase 'transfer of probation' indicates that supervisory duties are taken from one probation department and given to another." Morgan's Brief, p. 12.
    However, our review of the record reveals that it is silent as to whether the State of Georgia agreed to supervise Morgan's probation, see I.C. 11-13-4-1(1), and/or actually took supervisory duties from the State of Indiana. Further, even if the State of Georgia did assume supervisory duties, the transfer of supervision is not the transfer of jurisdiction. I.C. 11-13-4- 1(3) provides that "duly accredited officers of a sending state may enter a receiving state and there apprehend and retake any person on probation." If Indiana officers would have had the authority to go to Georgia and retake Morgan, Hill, an Indiana probation officer, had the authority to initiate probation revocation proceedings against Morgan based on Morgan's behavior upon his return to Indiana.
    Further, upon examination of Ind.Code 11-13-5-1, it is clearly established that should Morgan have had a probation violation hearing in the receiving state, the appropriate judicial

or administrative authorities were required to notify Indiana regarding any recommendations that it was making concerning disposition, which would not preclude Indiana from retaking or reincarcerating Morgan. Morgan's argument is totally without merit, and we find no error.
II. Sufficiency of the Evidence
    Morgan further argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. Again, we disagree.
    Probation is a matter of grace, and whether probation is granted is within the trial court's discretion. Bahr v. State, 634 N.E.2d 543, 545 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). The sole question at a probation revocation hearing is whether the probationer should be allowed to remain conditionally free, given evidence of repeated antisocial behavior, or rather should be required to serve the previously imposed sentence in prison. Id.
    A revocation hearing is in the nature of a civil proceeding, and the alleged violation only needs to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. King v. State, 642 N.E.2d 1389, 1393 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). This court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. Rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the State, and

if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that the probationer is guilty of any violation, revocation of probation is appropriate. Id.
    Here, our review of the record reveals that at the revocation hearing, Morgan's girlfriend, LaTonya Burns, testified that on April 2, 1996, as the couple was driving back to Anderson from Frankfort with their son, Morgan hit her at least ten times.See footnote 2 Morgan posits that "LaTonya's story is highly incredible," and is "not sufficient evidence of probative value to find Morgan violated his probation by a preponderance of the evidence." Morgan's Brief, pp. 16, 17. However, we must decline his invitation to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. We find sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Morgan's probation.See footnote 3
    Affirmed.
SHARPNACK, C.J., and STATON, J., concur.

Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network