Jacob D. Hudson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 31, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-1921
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 31 2020, 9:44 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David W. Stone IV Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General

Megan M. Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jacob D. Hudson, January 31, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-1921 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark Dudley, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C06-1811-F4-2954

Crone, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1921 | January 31, 2020 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Jacob D. Hudson appeals the trial court’s order revoking his placement in

community corrections and committing him to the Indiana Department of

Correction (“DOC”) to execute the remainder of his two-year sentence. He

asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the execution of his

sentence in the DOC. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In November 2018, the State charged Hudson with level 4 felony arson and

level 6 felony auto theft. Hudson agreed to plead guilty to both crimes as level

6 felonies on April 26, 2019. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court

sentenced Hudson to two years of in-home detention.

[3] A little over a month later, the State filed a motion for revocation of community

corrections placement alleging that Hudson violated the terms and conditions

of his placement by failing to obtain a substance abuse evaluation, testing

positive for methamphetamine, failing to pay home detention fees, and failing

to submit to a requested drug screen. The State subsequently filed an amended

notice of violation to include additional allegations that Hudson committed

new criminal offenses by possessing a syringe and narcotics, testing positive for

amphetamine, norfentanyl, and norbuprenorphine, and failing to pay urine

drug screen fees.

[4] During an evidentiary hearing on the State’s motion, Hudson admitted to

violating his placement by using methamphetamine and norfentanyl, failing to

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1921 | January 31, 2020 Page 2 of 5 submit to requested drug screening, and failing to pay home detention and drug

screen fees. The State dismissed the allegations that Hudson used amphetamine

and norbuprenorphine, and that he failed to obtain a substance abuse

evaluation. Hudson denied committing a new criminal offense. The State

presented evidence that on May 31, 2019, Anderson Police Department officers

found Hudson unresponsive in a pickup truck that had crashed into a bridge

railing. A syringe was located next to Hudson in the truck. Because officers

believed that Hudson was overdosing, they removed him from the truck and

administered a dose of Narcan. Hudson woke up and was transported to the

hospital. Officers found heroin in the pickup truck.

[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court accepted Hudson’s admissions

to violating the terms and conditions of his placement and further concluded

that the State had met its burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,

that Hudson had committed the new crimes of unlawful possession of a syringe

and possession of a narcotic drug. Before the trial court announced its sanction

for Hudson’s violations, Hudson requested that he be permitted to serve the

remaining six months of his executed sentence, or at least the last ninety days,

in an inpatient treatment facility to address his addiction issues. The trial court

rejected Hudson’s request and instead ordered Hudson to serve the remainder

of his sentence in the DOC. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] Hudson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a fully

executed sentence in the DOC as a sanction for his violation of his placement in Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1921 | January 31, 2020 Page 3 of 5 community corrections. We begin by noting that placement in community

corrections is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a

right.” Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting

Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App.1995)). Further, “[b]oth

probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to

commitment in the DOC and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial

court.” Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).

[7] This Court treats a petition to revoke placement in a community corrections

program the same as a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d

547, 549 (Ind. 1999). We review a trial court’s sentencing decision in a

probation revocation proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Puckett v. State, 956

N.E.2d 1182, 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when

the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

before the court. Id. Upon finding a community corrections violation, the trial

court at its discretion may impose one or more of the following sanctions: (1)

change the terms of the placement; (2) continue the placement; or (3) revoke the

placement and commit the person to the DOC for the remainder of the

sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5.

[8] Here, the trial court revoked Hudson’s placement and committed him to the

DOC for the remaining six months of his sentence. In rejecting his request to

instead execute the remainder of his sentence, or at least a portion thereof, in a

treatment facility to address his addiction issues, the trial court emphasized

Hudson’s extensive history with the criminal justice system and noted that he

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1921 | January 31, 2020 Page 4 of 5 had previously received services through drug court, purposeful incarceration,

CTP, COS, and in-home detention. Tr. Vol. 2 at 25. 1 Rather than successfully

complete any of those programs, Hudson repeatedly accumulated new criminal

charges. Hudson acknowledged, “I know that my past hasn’t really reflected

anything probably good.” Id. at 27. The trial court observed, “[Y]ou’ve been

given lots of chances[,]” and noted, “In my estimation other Judges have

already provided you everything that’s possible in the community and so I’m

left with revoking your [placement] to the Department of Correction based on

your admissions and the Court’s finding.” Id. at 30. Under the circumstances,

we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked

Hudson’s placement and ordered him to execute the remainder of his sentence

in the DOC.

[9] Affirmed.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

1 CTP stands for community transition program. COS stands for continuum of sanctions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1921 | January 31, 2020 Page 5 of 5