FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 15 2016, 7:02 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK Indiana Supreme Court this Memorandum Decision shall not be Court of Appeals and Tax Court regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David T.A. Mattingly Gregory F. Zoeller Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Patrick Tremell Lucas, June 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1510-CR-1695 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-0404-FA-11
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Patrick Tremell Lucas appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his
probation and requiring him to execute the remainder of his sentence at the
Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Lucas argues that there
was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he violated the
rules of his placement in Tippecanoe County Community Corrections
(Community Corrections).
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On September 28, 2005, Lucas was sentenced to a thirty-year aggregate
sentence for one count of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class B
felony escape. The trial court ordered twenty years executed, five years
suspended on supervised probation, and five years suspended on unsupervised
probation. On February 19, 2013, Lucas finished the executed portion of his
sentence and began serving his five-year term of supervised probation.
[4] On September 17, 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging
that Lucas committed the crime of possession of paraphernalia. Lucas
admitted this violation, and the trial court ordered him to serve two years on
home detention with the possibility of day reporting if it became available.
After a period of home detention, Lucas began day reporting on June 11, 2015.
Day reporting requires, in pertinent part, that an individual: (1) submit weekly
schedules, (2) report in person to Community Corrections Monday through
Friday, and (3) abide by a 7:00 p.m. curfew and remain at home until 6:00 a.m.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [5] Immediately following his day reporting placement, Lucas failed to submit
weekly schedules for the weeks beginning June 16 and June 23, 2015. On June
24, 2015, Lucas arrived at Community Corrections for his daily reporting. He
was greeted by Rebecca Maslanka, the day reporting supervisor, who informed
Lucas that he would receive a violation report for his failure to comply with the
Community Corrections rule of turning in weekly schedules. Lucas’s sanction
for his violation, according to Maslanka, would be a work crew assignment.
Lucas became angry at this news and spoke loud enough that “staff members
start[ed] to . . . walk toward the front, [began to] ask what was going on, [and]
watch[ed] to make sure that the situation didn’t escalate . . . .” Transcript at 50.
[6] Around 9:00 p.m. on June 24, 2015, Officers James Knogge and John
McKinnis, drove to Lucas’s home to deliver the written violation report and
conduct a walk-through of the residence. Lucas, however, was not home.
About an hour later, Officer Knogge returned to Lucas’s residence with another
officer. Lucas claimed he had left to pick his children up from the pool because
his fiancé had an emergency and was unable to do so. Officer Knogge stated
that he would not take action against Lucas for violating curfew. Officer
McKinnis, Officer Knogge’s supervisor, later disagreed with Officer McKinnis’s
decision and wrote Lucas up for violating curfew. As a result of Lucas’s
violations—failing to submit weekly schedules and abide by curfew—he was
sanctioned by Community Corrections with work crew and home detention.
[7] On July 1, 2015, Lucas went to Community Corrections to enroll in the work
crew. While there Lucas became upset and loud, stating that he thought it was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 7 “unfair” and that “everything was bogus [and] that he wasn’t supposed to be
written up.” Id. at 56. Lucas continued to state that he could not return to
home detention because of his children. Id. at 45-6. Allison Miner, Deputy
Director for Community Corrections, attempted to calm Lucas by telling him to
come back the next day after he had composed himself. Lucas, however, was
not cooperative and escalated the situation by demanding to know if he was
under arrest. After explaining several times that he was not under arrest, Miner
finally told him to leave due to his hostile behavior. Miner let Lucas know that
she was going to request a warrant for his arrest based on his refusal to return to
home detention. As a result of Lucas’s behavior, Community Corrections
refused to allow Lucas back into the Community Corrections program.
[8] On July 2, 2015, the State filed a Motion to Commit, alleging that Lucas
violated his placement at Community Corrections by refusing to return to home
detention, as well as by violating two rules of Community Corrections. At the
conclusion of an evidentiary hearing on August 7, 2015, the trial court found
Lucas violated his placement at Community Corrections. Following a
dispositional hearing on September 21, 2015, the trial court revoked Lucas’s
Community Corrections placement, and ordered him to serve the two-year
sanction previously imposed at the DOC. Lucas now appeals. Additional facts
will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 7 [9] Lucas argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the
finding that he violated the rules of his Community Corrections placement. For
purposes of appellate review, a hearing on a petition to revoke placement in a
community corrections program is treated the same as a hearing on a petition to
revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). The State
needs only to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The reviewing court
will consider all of the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial
court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the
trial court’s conclusion that Lucas has violated any terms of Community
Corrections, the reviewing court will affirm the decision to revoke. See id.
“Violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.”
Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Wilson v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED MEMORANDUM DECISION Jun 15 2016, 7:02 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), CLERK Indiana Supreme Court this Memorandum Decision shall not be Court of Appeals and Tax Court regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David T.A. Mattingly Gregory F. Zoeller Lafayette, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Patrick Tremell Lucas, June 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 79A02-1510-CR-1695 v. Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Randy J. Williams, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 79D01-0404-FA-11
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 1 of 7 [1] Patrick Tremell Lucas appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his
probation and requiring him to execute the remainder of his sentence at the
Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal, Lucas argues that there
was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he violated the
rules of his placement in Tippecanoe County Community Corrections
(Community Corrections).
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On September 28, 2005, Lucas was sentenced to a thirty-year aggregate
sentence for one count of Class B felony robbery and one count of Class B
felony escape. The trial court ordered twenty years executed, five years
suspended on supervised probation, and five years suspended on unsupervised
probation. On February 19, 2013, Lucas finished the executed portion of his
sentence and began serving his five-year term of supervised probation.
[4] On September 17, 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging
that Lucas committed the crime of possession of paraphernalia. Lucas
admitted this violation, and the trial court ordered him to serve two years on
home detention with the possibility of day reporting if it became available.
After a period of home detention, Lucas began day reporting on June 11, 2015.
Day reporting requires, in pertinent part, that an individual: (1) submit weekly
schedules, (2) report in person to Community Corrections Monday through
Friday, and (3) abide by a 7:00 p.m. curfew and remain at home until 6:00 a.m.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 2 of 7 [5] Immediately following his day reporting placement, Lucas failed to submit
weekly schedules for the weeks beginning June 16 and June 23, 2015. On June
24, 2015, Lucas arrived at Community Corrections for his daily reporting. He
was greeted by Rebecca Maslanka, the day reporting supervisor, who informed
Lucas that he would receive a violation report for his failure to comply with the
Community Corrections rule of turning in weekly schedules. Lucas’s sanction
for his violation, according to Maslanka, would be a work crew assignment.
Lucas became angry at this news and spoke loud enough that “staff members
start[ed] to . . . walk toward the front, [began to] ask what was going on, [and]
watch[ed] to make sure that the situation didn’t escalate . . . .” Transcript at 50.
[6] Around 9:00 p.m. on June 24, 2015, Officers James Knogge and John
McKinnis, drove to Lucas’s home to deliver the written violation report and
conduct a walk-through of the residence. Lucas, however, was not home.
About an hour later, Officer Knogge returned to Lucas’s residence with another
officer. Lucas claimed he had left to pick his children up from the pool because
his fiancé had an emergency and was unable to do so. Officer Knogge stated
that he would not take action against Lucas for violating curfew. Officer
McKinnis, Officer Knogge’s supervisor, later disagreed with Officer McKinnis’s
decision and wrote Lucas up for violating curfew. As a result of Lucas’s
violations—failing to submit weekly schedules and abide by curfew—he was
sanctioned by Community Corrections with work crew and home detention.
[7] On July 1, 2015, Lucas went to Community Corrections to enroll in the work
crew. While there Lucas became upset and loud, stating that he thought it was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 3 of 7 “unfair” and that “everything was bogus [and] that he wasn’t supposed to be
written up.” Id. at 56. Lucas continued to state that he could not return to
home detention because of his children. Id. at 45-6. Allison Miner, Deputy
Director for Community Corrections, attempted to calm Lucas by telling him to
come back the next day after he had composed himself. Lucas, however, was
not cooperative and escalated the situation by demanding to know if he was
under arrest. After explaining several times that he was not under arrest, Miner
finally told him to leave due to his hostile behavior. Miner let Lucas know that
she was going to request a warrant for his arrest based on his refusal to return to
home detention. As a result of Lucas’s behavior, Community Corrections
refused to allow Lucas back into the Community Corrections program.
[8] On July 2, 2015, the State filed a Motion to Commit, alleging that Lucas
violated his placement at Community Corrections by refusing to return to home
detention, as well as by violating two rules of Community Corrections. At the
conclusion of an evidentiary hearing on August 7, 2015, the trial court found
Lucas violated his placement at Community Corrections. Following a
dispositional hearing on September 21, 2015, the trial court revoked Lucas’s
Community Corrections placement, and ordered him to serve the two-year
sanction previously imposed at the DOC. Lucas now appeals. Additional facts
will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 4 of 7 [9] Lucas argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the
finding that he violated the rules of his Community Corrections placement. For
purposes of appellate review, a hearing on a petition to revoke placement in a
community corrections program is treated the same as a hearing on a petition to
revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). The State
needs only to prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). The reviewing court
will consider all of the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial
court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the
witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the
trial court’s conclusion that Lucas has violated any terms of Community
Corrections, the reviewing court will affirm the decision to revoke. See id.
“Violation of a single condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.”
Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458, 461 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (citing Wilson v.
State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)).
[10] Additionally, we note that a defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence on
probation or community corrections; but rather, placement therein is a “matter
of grace” and a “constitutional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Cox, 706
N.E.2d at 549. Once the trial court has exercised its grace, the judge has
considerable leeway in deciding the outcome when the terms of placement are
violated. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 5 of 7 [11] On appeal, Lucas asserts that there was insufficient evidence presented that he
failed to “comply with the criteria for participation in home detention” and
“cooperate with the staff presenting the program.” Appellant’s Brief at 9.
[12] The record establishes that Community Corrections is no longer available to
Lucas as a direct result of his violations and hostile behavior. Maslanka
testified that Lucas violated a Community Corrections requirement by not
completing two weekly schedules and, thus, received a work crew sanction.
Thereafter, Lucas was not at his residence at 9:00 p.m.—two hours past his
curfew—when an officer attempted to deliver a violation report, and Lucas did
not call the emergency hotline or receive prior approval to be out past curfew.
As a result, when Lucas came into the Community Corrections office to enroll
for work crew, Miner testified that Lucas stated he “would not and could not”
comply with the placement of home detention for his failure to meet curfew.
Transcript at 12-3. Lucas was hostile to the point that Miner had to ask him to
leave.
[13] This is the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court and we
reject the invitation to reweigh the evidence. The trial court did not abuse its
discretion by determining that Lucas violated the rules of his Community
Corrections placement.1
1 Lucas also asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. Lucas, however, presents no argument in support of this. Accordingly, we find the issue
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 6 of 7 [14] Judgment affirmed.
Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.
waived. See Wingate v. State, 900 N.E.2d 468, 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (“A party waives an issue where the party fails to develop a cogent argument or provide adequate citation to authority and portions of the record.”).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A02-1510-CR-1695 | June 15, 2016 Page 7 of 7