for a positive drug screen on November 20, 2005.” Id. The State responds that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis and therefore there is no double jeopardy violation here. It is true that a violation of a condition of probation does not constitute an offense within the purview of double jeopardy analysis. See Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh’g denied. Revocation proceedings are based upon violations of probation conditions rather than upon the commission of a crime, and the -finding of whether a defendant has complied with these conditions is a question of fact and not an adjudication of guilt. Id.; see also Harris v. State, 836 N.E.2d 267, 282 n. 20 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. Moreover, because double
holding that there is no significant conceptual difference between the revocation of probation or parole and the revocation of supervised release holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution holding that revocation of parole does not create collateral consequences sufficient to extend standing beyond expiration of sentence and rejecting as moot a challenge to an allegedly erroneous parole revocation holding that revocation of the harriss parole like revocation of a defendants probation did not subject him to double jeopardy under the united states constitution because of similarities between the two holding that standard for revocation of probation is preponderance of the evidence