Robb, J.
….
Joshua Trammell entered into a plea agreement to resolve two pending cases against him, Class D felony resisting law enforcement under Cause Number 24C02-0904-FD-158 (“Cause 158”) and Class D felony theft under Cause Number 24C02-0907-FD-401 (“Cause 401”). … Trammell was ultimately found to have violated his probation in Cause 401 and was ordered to serve five months of his previously suspended sentence. Trammell now appeals, raising the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. Concluding there was insufficient proof that Trammell’s alleged violation occurred during his probationary period, we reverse.
….
At some point not clear from the record,1 Trammell was released from the Department of Correction (“DOC”) and began serving his probation in Franklin County. … On July 17, 2012, the trial court issued an order on probation revocation in Cause 158, finding Trammell had violated the terms of his probation in Cause 158 and ordering him to serve four months of his previously-suspended sentence on Cause 158 in DOC, “to be served consecutive to any other causes.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] Trammell was given forty-seven days of credit for time confined awaiting sentencing.
[Footnote 1: The State filed an appendix containing a document titled “Franklin County Probation Department,” which purported to show the dates Trammell was on probation in Cause 401. This document was not filed with the trial court or submitted during the hearing. It bears neither a date indicating when it was prepared, nor a signature indicating who prepared it. Trammell filed a motion to strike this document and any reference to it from the State’s brief. This document is not a record of a court of this state of which we can take judicial notice, see Ind. Evid. R. 201(b), nor is it part of the Clerk’s Record. We may not consider matters outside the record in ruling on an appeal, Schaefer v. Kumar, 804 N.E.2d 184, 187 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied, and we have therefore granted Trammell’s motion to strike by separate order also issued this date.]
Again, at some point not clear from the record, Trammell was released from DOC and resumed serving his probation in Cause 158 and Cause 401. On June 17, 2013, the probation department filed a petition of probation violation in Cause 401, alleging Trammell tested positive for opiates on March 28, 2013, and May 10, 2013, and did not report to the probation department as directed on April 8, 2013; April 10, 2013; and April 16, 2013. * * *
At the close of evidence [at the revocation hearing], the trial court … found the State had met its burden of proving Trammell had violated his probation: “I’m going to revoke the five months [remaining on his suspended sentences] and that’s not going to be concurrent to anything.” Trammell now appeals.
….
A trial court “may revoke a person’s probation if . . . the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period” and the petition is filed during that period or within a certain time thereafter. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(a) (emphasis added). … Revocation is therefore improper when it is based on a violation occurring after the expiration of the term of probation.
….
Trammell was sentenced in Cause 401 and Cause 158 on July 13, 2010, to concurrent terms of two years with nine months suspended to probation. It is not clear from the record exactly when Trammell was released from incarceration and began serving his probation in these two causes. However, on … July 17, 2012, his probation in Cause 158 was revoked, and he was ordered to serve four months in DOC, with forty-seven days of credit for time confined awaiting sentencing. [Footnote omitted.] …
It is also not clear from the record when Trammell was released from this second period of incarceration to resume serving what remained of his probation. But if Trammell served every day of the four months he was ordered to serve on July 17, 2012—accounting for the forty-seven days he served before sentencing—he would have been released back to probation no later than September 30, 2012. … We need not decide whether Trammell’s remaining probationary period in Cause 401 upon his release was the two and one-half months the probation department stated or the five months of his suspended sentence that he had not yet served due to the revocation. [Footnote omitted.] Two and one-half months from September 30, 2012 is approximately December 14, 2012; five months from that date is approximately February 28, 2013. The petition of probation revocation alleges Trammell committed his first violation of probation in Cause 401 on March 28, 2013. Therefore, on the face of the record, Trammell’s probationary period had ended well before he was alleged to have violated probation.
….
It may very well be that, due to other factors not apparent from the face of the record, Trammell had not in fact completed his probation by March 28, 2013. [Footnote omitted.] But there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support any other conclusion. The standard of proof for revoking probation may be lower, but there still must be evidence from which the trial court can determine that an alleged violation occurred within the probationary period. Such evidence is lacking here, and we are compelled to conclude the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Trammell’s probation.
….
Vaidik, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.