Kevin L. Henson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 6, 2018
• Docket: 18A-CR-189
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 06 2018, 9:11 am regarded as precedent or cited before any 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 William Byer, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Byer & Byer Attorney General of Indiana Anderson, Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Kevin L. Henson, June 6, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-189 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Warner Appellee-Plaintiff. Sims, Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 48C01-1211-FD-2167 48C01-1605-F6-1063 48C01-1707-F6-1686

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 5 Statement of the Case [1] Kevin L. Henson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement with a

problem-solving court. Henson raises 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 History [2] On September 13, 2017, the trial court placed Henson with a problem-solving

court after he had pleaded guilty in three separate causes of action. On

November 1, while a participant with the problem-solving court, Henson

admitted to Katie Stapleton, his case manager, that he had continued to have

relationships and communication with known felons, contrary to the rules of

the problem-solving court. He further admitted to dealing in controlled

substances.

[3] The State filed a notice of termination request in all three cause numbers, and

the trial court held a consolidated evidentiary hearing on the State’s notice. At

that hearing, Henson admitted that he had violated the problem-solving court’s

rule with respect to having continued relationships and communications with

known felons. However, he denied dealing in controlled substances. On that

allegation, Stapleton testified that she had seen text messages on Henson’s

phone that suggested he had been dealing in controlled substances, and when

she confronted him about those messages he admitted that “he had dealt on at

least one occasion to pay his work release rent so he could get out of work

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 5 release . . . .” Tr. Vol. I at 14. Stapleton further testified that Henson had

admitted at least one time in court to dealing, and that she had recorded that

hearing.

[4] Following the evidentiary hearing, the court took the matter under advisement

to review the recordings of the problem-solving court. Thereafter, in light of

those recordings and the testimony from the evidentiary hearing, the court

found that Henson had violated the terms and conditions of the problem-

solving court, and it terminated him from that placement accordingly. The

court then ordered Henson to serve the balance of his term in the Department

of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [5] Henson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement with the problem-

solving court. Placement in forensic diversion programs such as our problem-

solving courts are akin to placements in community corrections and probation.

Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Placement in such

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

right.” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State,

706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). It is within the discretion of the trial court to

determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are

violated. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). In appeals from trial

court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of

discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 5 against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial

court misinterprets the law. Id.

[6] Henson argues on appeal that his admission to violating the problem-solving

court’s rule against communication with known felons “did not warrant

revocation” by itself. Appellant’s Br. at 18. He further argues that his own

testimony during the evidentiary hearing should be given controlling weight, as

he testified that his text messages were about other matters and were

misconstrued. And he asserts that this Court should not credit Stapleton’s

testimony.

[7] We reject Henson’s arguments. Henson’s admission alone is sufficient to affirm

the trial court’s judgment to revoke his placement. E.g., Pierce v. State, 44

N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). And Stapleton’s testimony, which we

will not reweigh on appeal, further supports the trial court’s judgment. Again,

Stapleton testified that she found suspicious text messages on Henson’s phone

and that, when she confronted him about those texts, he admitted to dealing in

order to pay his work release rent. Henson’s argument that we ignore that

testimony or otherwise discount it in favor of his own testimony is simply a

request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We affirm

the trial court’s revocation of Henson’s placement with the problem-solving

court.

[8] Affirmed.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 5 Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 5