follows the procedures outlined in Ind.Code § 35-38-2-3, the court may properly order execution of a suspended sentence. Crump, 740 N.E.2d at 573. Ind.Code § 85-38-2-3(g) provides the trial court may take one of three actions if the court finds the person "violated a condition" of probation: (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; or - (3) order execution of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing. (emphasis added). We have repeatedly noted the violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation. See, e.g., Smith 310 N.E.2d 571, 579 (1974) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Hoffa v. State,
holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the defendants probation before the defendant completed his executed sentence holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking defendants probation when urinalysis tested positive for use of morphine holding that probationer failed to satisfy the donaldson test for determining if a probation condition is not reasonably related to the probationers rehabilitation and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing random urinalysis as a condition of probation holding defendants positive urinalysis test for marijuana use was sufficient to support revocation of defendants probation