Faderick D. Riley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 18, 2018
• Docket: 02A03-1712-CR-2923
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any May 18 2018, 10:22 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory L. Fumarolo Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Fort Wayne, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Faderick D. Riley, May 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 02A03-1712-CR-2923 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-1604-F6-388

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1712-CR-2923 | May 18, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Faderick D. Riley appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement in a

work-release program. Riley presents a single issue for our review, namely,

whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the revocation of his

placement. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History1 [2] On May 17, 2017, Riley pleaded guilty to resisting law enforcement, as a Level

6 felony. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Riley to two

years suspended to probation. About a week later, the State filed a petition to

revoke Riley’s probation based on another, subsequent charge of resisting law

enforcement. Riley admitted to the alleged probation violation. On August 10,

the court revoked Riley’s probation and ordered him to serve the balance of his

original term in the Indiana Department of Correction, but the court stated that

Riley’s executed sentence was “to be satisfied” through the Allen County Work

Release program. Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 93.

[3] On September 27, the State filed a petition to revoke Riley’s placement in the

work-release program. The State’s petition alleged that, less than one month

after Riley had been admitted to work release, he “verbally abus[ed] staff” and

engaged in “conduct which inhibits the safe and orderly running of the facility.”

1 The Statement of Facts in Riley’s brief on appeal is not in accordance with our standard of review. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(b).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1712-CR-2923 | May 18, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Id. at 98. At an evidentiary hearing on the State’s petition, Robert Costanza, an

officer with the Allen County Work Release program, testified that officers did

room searches at the program’s facility on September 11, 2017. Following the

search of Riley’s room, Riley began “yelling” and cursing at officers through an

intercom. Tr. at 6. Riley had entered into the officers’ storage area, where he

was not permitted. Riley told the officers that he was missing $5.00 and a

Bluetooth headset, though Riley later said he was actually missing $500.

Costanza testified that Riley was “very upset” during the encounter, that Riley

required an “officer presence” to ensure “the safety of the staff and other

inmates,” and that, due to Riley’s behavior, officers had to “pull[] him away

from everyone” else. Id. at 8, 12. John Fizer, a resident advisor with the Allen

County Work Release program, also testified at the evidentiary hearing and

corroborated Costanza’s testimony.

[4] Following the evidentiary hearing, the court revoked Riley’s placement in the

work-release program. The court then ordered Riley to serve the balance of his

two years in the Allen County Confinement Facility. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Riley appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement on work release. As

our Supreme Court has explained, a defendant is not entitled to serve a

sentence on work release. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999).

Rather, such placement is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is

a favor, not a right.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Thus, in our review of the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1712-CR-2923 | May 18, 2018 Page 3 of 5 trial court’s revocation of such placement, we will consider all the evidence

most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing

the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 551. If there is

substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion

that a defendant has violated any terms of his placement, we will affirm the

court’s decision to revoke that placement. Id.

[6] Riley does not dispute that the conditions of his placement on work release

prohibited him from verbally abusing staff, entering unauthorized areas of the

facility without permission, and engaging in conduct that inhibited the safe and

orderly operation of the work-release facility. Rather, Riley asserts on appeal

that his behavior was justified by his allegedly missing property and the work-

release officers’ failure to investigate his allegations. According to Riley, we

should reverse the trial court’s judgment because the State did not present

evidence that Riley “resisted staff in any way or that any inmate or staff was

injured,” and because “no evidence was presented that Riley’s actions incited

any other ‘inmate’ to act badly or that there was any impact on the running of

the facility . . . .” Appellant’s Br. at 14.

[7] We cannot agree. Costanza’s testimony, as well as Fizer’s testimony,

supported the State’s allegation that Riley had yelled and cursed at the facility’s

officers after they had done a room search. Their testimony further confirms

that Riley had entered an unauthorized area without permission and that

Riley’s behavior necessitated officer involvement for the security of the facility

and those within it. Riley’s argument on appeal is merely a request for this

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1712-CR-2923 | May 18, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Court to reweigh the evidence by crediting Riley’s testimony over the testimony

of the State’s witnesses, which we cannot do. We affirm the trial court’s

revocation of Riley’s placement on work release.

[8] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A03-1712-CR-2923 | May 18, 2018 Page 5 of 5