Loretta Y. Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 18, 2018
• Docket: 48A02-1710-CR-2571
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 18 2018, 9:04 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 Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana George P. Sherman Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Loretta Y. Mitchell, June 18, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 48A02-1710-CR-2571 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David A. Happe, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-1311-FC-2162

Robb, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary and Issue [1] The trial court revoked Loretta Mitchell’s placement in community corrections

and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in the Indiana

Department of Correction. Mitchell appeals, raising one issue for our review:

whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke her placement in community

corrections. Concluding sufficient evidence was presented to revoke her

placement, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In 2014, Mitchell pleaded guilty to battery by means of a deadly weapon, a

Class C felony, and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial

court sentenced Mitchell to a total of six years in the Department of Correction

with two of those years suspended to probation.

[3] In April of 2017, the State alleged Mitchell had committed a probation

violation and moved to revoke her probation. Mitchell admitted the violation

and the trial court revoked the suspended portion of her sentence and placed

her in the Continuum of Sanctions Program in the Madison Community Justice

Center. Mitchell was subsequently placed on work release and, in a relatively

short period of time, committed a rules violation by failing to return. The trial

court ordered Mitchell to serve sixty days in the Madison County Detention

Center and, upon completion of that sentence, return to the Continuum of

Sanctions Program to serve the remainder of her sentence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [4] In August of 2017, the Continuum of Sanctions Program alleged Mitchell

violated program rules by failing to report to a Community Justice Center

appointment with the program coordinator, Stephanie McCreary. The trial

court held an evidentiary hearing on October 2, 2017, at which McCreary

testified she met with Mitchell on July 25, 2017, advised her of the program’s

rules and that she needed to attend meetings, and informed her that her next

meeting was scheduled for August 1, 2017. McCreary stated Mitchell did not

attend the scheduled appointment and she did not hear from her after that

point. Mitchell also testified and stated McCreary told her she would send a

letter with the date of her next scheduled appointment. Mitchell alleged she

never received a letter and that the letter McCreary allegedly attempted to send

to her contained the incorrect address. At the conclusion of the hearing, the

trial court revoked Mitchell’s placement in the program and ordered her to

serve the remaining portion of her sentence in the Department of Correction.

Mitchell now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Mitchell’s sole argument is the evidence is insufficient to show she violated the

terms of her placement in the Continuum of Sanctions Program. We review a

decision to revoke placement in a community corrections program in the same

manner as a decision to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549

(Ind. 1999). “A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only

prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 551.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 6 We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and will

consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court. Id.

“If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s

conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm

its decision to revoke probation.” Id. The violation of a single condition of

probation is enough to support revocation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755

(Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

[6] Mitchell’s main concern regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is with what

she describes as “inconsistencies” in McCreary’s testimony and the letter she

allegedly sent to Mitchell. Appellant’s Brief at 11. The letter states,

July 28, 2017

Loretta Mitchell 331 West 9th St. Anderson, IN 46016

Ms. Mitchell,

On 7/28/2017, you failed to attend your 2:00 p.m. scheduled appointment at the Madison County Community Justice Center. Several attempts to contact you by phone have been unsuccessful. This letter is to inform you that you are to physically report to the Madison County Community Justice Center on August 11, 2017, at 11 a.m. If you fail to attend this scheduled appointment, a warrant for your arrest will be issued and a termination of your executed sentence under cause number will be filed.

Appellant’s Appendix, Volume II at 33. Mitchell contends she never received

this letter and alleges it contains the wrong address, it states the incorrect date,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 6 and it states McCreary attempted to call her when she does not have a phone

number. Although Mitchell points out alleged errors in the letter, if she did not

receive the letter, the letter is of no consequence and she should have reported

to the Madison County Community Justice Center at the time McCreary told

her in their meeting. If she did receive the letter and it contained

inconsistencies, she should have contacted McCreary for clarification.

[7] Regardless of any inconsistencies with the letter, McCreary testified when she

met with Mitchell on July 25, 2017, she orally informed her of the date of her

next appointment—August 1, 2017. She informed Mitchell of the rules and

regulations of the program which included the fact that she must attend all

scheduled meetings. She also stated she verified all of Mitchell’s contact

information with her on that date. The trial court believed McCreary’s

testimony and stated, “I don’t care if the letter was never sent at all. [Mitchell]

had notice at the meeting with Ms. McCreary that she needed to be there and

she didn’t do that.” Transcript, Volume II at 33. This evidence is sufficient to

show Mitchell violated the rules of the program by failing to attend a meeting.

Mitchell’s argument to the contrary is simply a request to reweigh the evidence,

which we cannot do. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549.

Conclusion

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 6 [8] There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke

Mitchell’s placement in community corrections. Accordingly, we affirm the

trial court’s decision.

[9] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 6 of 6