Najam, J.
Cory L. Montgomery appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Montgomery raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court’s revocation of his probation, which followed the court’s revocation of his placement in a community transition program, violated the doctrine of res judicata. It did not. As such, we affirm.
On July 16, 2012, Montgomery pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug, as a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Montgomery to thirteen years, with five years suspended. The court further ordered Montgomery to serve the final four years of his nonsuspended term on “active adult probation.”
On June 19, 2015, the trial court assigned Montgomery from the Indiana Department of Correction to the Allen County Community Transition Program, and the court ordered Montgomery to comply with certain conditions of reentry. In its order, the court informed Montgomery that, “[i]f probation was imposed in the original sentence, then the defendant shall report to the Probation Department as directed . . . .” Id. at 64.
On August 24, Montgomery appeared for a urine screen and attempted to use a urine sample that he had hidden in a condom behind his scrotum during that screen, but a drug screen technician prevented him from doing so. On August 27, the State filed its petition to revoke Montgomery’s placement in the transition program. …
On August 31, the trial court revoked Montgomery’s placement in the transition program. The court further revoked sixty days of actual credit time from Montgomery’s sentence. The court then referred Montgomery to the Allen County Probation Department “for further action.” Id. at 77.
….
After a contested evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked Montgomery’s probation and ordered him to serve five years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
….
Montgomery’s only argument on appeal is that the trial court’s revocation of both his placement in the transition program and his probation violated the doctrine of res judicata. According to our supreme court:
Res judicata is a legal doctrine intended “to prevent repetitious litigation of disputes that are essentially the same, by holding a prior final judgment binding against both the original parties and their privies.” …
We cannot agree that the trial court’s subsequent revocation of Montgomery’s probation was barred by its prior revocation of his placement in the transition program. …
Placement on probation and placement in a community transition program are not one and the same, and the court’s consideration of those options is not mutually exclusive. Rather, those options are two of many tools in the trial court’s toolbox for the court’s use in the administration and supervision of a defendant’s sentence, over which the court has continuing jurisdiction. We conclude that the trial court’s revocation of Montgomery’s probation was not barred by res judicata and was not otherwise an abuse of the trial court’s
discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.