State, 727 N.E.2d 763, 766 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); Brooks v. State, 692 N.E.2d 951, 953-54 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), reh'g denied, trans. denied 706 N.E.2d 166 (Ind.1998); Menifee v. State, 600 N.E.2d 967, 970 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), clarified on other grounds on denial of reh'g 605 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.Ct.App.1993). As we have explained: [The granting of a conditional liberty is a favor and not a right. When a trial court grants a defendant probation in lieu of an executed sentence, the trial court is taking many aspects of the defendant's character into account. When the defendant commits a crime or violates trial court did not abuse discretion by ordering defendant to serve suspended sentence when probation revoked for consumption of alcohol); Kincaid v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1257, 1259 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>), reh'g denied; Ewing v. State, 160 Ind.App.
holding that a prior conviction for using a communications device to facilitate the distribution of cocaine was admissible under rule 404b to prove that the defendant had the requisite intent to distribute cocaine holding that judgment of contempt was void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter holding provision in contempt order void because it punished relator for violating order that trial court lacked authority to enter holding that district court did not err in determining that cocaine base was crack cocaine based on chemical analysis identifying cocaine base together with competent lay testimony bridging the evidentiary gap between cocaine base and crack cocaine and refusing to require showing of smokeability ie water solubility or melting point for purposes of establishing crack cocaine under the guidelines since smokeability distinguishes cocaine base from powder cocaine not from crack holding trial courts order that defendant return to prison for violating probation by using cocaine was not excessive