his or her actual probation begins at a later date.” Kopkey v. State, 743 N.E.2d 331, 339 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied; see also Crump v. State, 740 N.E.2d 564, 568 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (“Although Crump’s actual probation had not yet begun, a defendant’s ‘probationary period’ begins immediately after sentencing. The violation occurred after Crump was sentenced but before the conclusion of the probationary phases of his sentence. Thus, Crump was in his probationary period.”) (citations omitted); Gardner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 398, 401 (Ind.CtApp.1997) (“Once a defendant has been sentenced, the court may revoke or modify probation, upon a proper showing of a violation, at any time before the completion of the probationary period.”); Johnson v. State, 606 N.E.2d 881, 882 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>). [10] We also note that, in his petition for
holding the bia did not abuse its discretion in finding petitioner did not satisfy the procedural requirements for his motion in part because petitioner failed to submit a completed application for relief holding trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation where greater weight of evidence did not show violation was willful holding that probation is not a sentence 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