Paul J. Coy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 23, 2019
• Docket: 19A-CR-700
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Aug 23 2019, 7:14 am court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE David W. Stone, IV Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Paul J. Coy, August 23, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-700 v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable David A. Happe, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 48C04-1610-F6-2212

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 1 of 10 Statement of the Case [1] Paul J. Coy (“Coy”) appeals the revocation of his community corrections

placement. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his

community corrections placement and ordering him to serve the remainder of

his sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction. Concluding that there

was no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[2] Affirmed.

Issues 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Coy’s community corrections placement.

2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Coy to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Facts [3] In October 2016, the State charged Coy with Level 6 felony residential entry,

Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor

invasion of privacy in this cause 48C04-1610-F6-2212 (“underlying cause”).

The victim of the residential entry and invasion of privacy in this underlying

cause was Coy’s ex-girlfriend, Rose Baker (“Baker”). At the time of the alleged

offenses in this underlying cause, Coy was on parole from his 2012 convictions

for Class C felony reckless homicide and two counts of Class D felony criminal

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 2 of 10 recklessness inflicting serious bodily injury in cause 48C03-1206-FC-1116

(“reckless homicide cause”). 1

[4] In February 2017, Coy entered a plea agreement in this underlying cause and

pled guilty as charged in exchange for the State’s recommendation that his

sentence would be “open to the court with any executed portion capped at 30

months and placement limited to COS.” (App. Vol. 2 at 30). The trial court

imposed a thirty (30) month sentence for Coy’s Level 6 felony residential entry

conviction, a twelve (12) month sentence for his Class A misdemeanor resisting

law enforcement conviction, and a twelve (12) month sentence for his Class A

misdemeanor invasion of privacy conviction. The trial court ordered these

three sentences to be served concurrently to each other but consecutively to his

parole sanction in his reckless homicide cause. The trial court “granted

community corrections” and ordered Coy to serve the thirty-month sentence

from this underlying cause in the Continuum of Sanctions (“COS”) program

through the Community Justice Center. (App. Vol. 2 at 5). Additionally, the

trial court ordered Coy to have no contact with Baker.

[5] On December 16, 2018, was released from the Indiana Department of

Correction from his parole sanction in his reckless homicide cause and was to

begin serving his sentence from this underlying cause in the COS program. Coy

was required to report to the Community Justice Center for the COS program

1 Coy was released on parole in his reckless homicide cause in July 2016.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 3 of 10 within forty-eight hours of his release, but he failed to do so. In fact, Coy never

reported at all.

[6] That same day, Coy went to Baker’s house. Coy told Baker that the protective

order she had had against him had been “dropped.” (Tr. 19). Baker, with Coy

still at her house, called and found out that the protective order was still in

effect. She then told him to leave her house.

[7] On December 29, 2018, despite the no-contact order, Coy went back to Baker’s

house. Baker’s eleven-year-old daughter (“Baker’s daughter”) answered the

door. Coy “shoved down” Baker’s daughter and entered the house without

permission. (Tr. 20). He went back to Baker’s room and cursed at her. Baker

called the police. When Anderson Police Officer Andrew Lanane (“Officer

Lanane”) responded to the scene, he verified that there was a protective order in

place for the protection of Baker from Coy. He also took a statement from

Baker and her daughter.

[8] In January 2019, the State filed a petition to terminate Coy’s community

corrections placement, alleging that Coy had violated the conditions of the COS

program by: (1) committing the new criminal offenses, including Level 4 felony

burglary, Level 5 felony battery of a child under fourteen years of age, Level 6

felony residential entry, and Level 6 felony invasion of privacy; and (2) failing

to report to the Community Justice Center to serve his sentence from this

underlying cause in the COS program.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 4 of 10 [9] In February 2019, the trial court held a revocation hearing. During the hearing,

the State presented testimony from Officer Lanane, Baker, and the coordinator

for the COS program (“COS Coordinator”) at the Community Justice Center.

Officer Lanane testified that there was a protective order in place on December

29 when Coy went to Baker’s house. The officer also testified that when he

took a statement from Baker’s daughter at the scene, she told him that Coy had

gone into the house without permission, pushed her down, walked to the back

of the house, and cursed out Baker. Immediately thereafter, Coy objected to

the officer’s testimony based on hearsay. The trial court ultimately determined

that there was an “adequate showing of reliability” and ruled that it would

allow the testimony. (Tr. 10). During Baker’s testimony, she was asked when

she was first aware that Coy was in her house on December 29, and she

testified—without objection—that she “didn’t know he was there until after

[her] daughter had got[ten] shoved down and then he c[a]me to her room[.]”

(Tr. 20). Baker also testified that Coy had entered her house without

permission. The COS Coordinator testified that Coy was supposed to report to

the COS program within forty-eight hours of his release from the Indiana

Department of Correction on December 16, 2018 but that he never reported.

When Coy testified, he acknowledged that he was aware that he was supposed

to report to the COS program upon his release from prison. Coy also

acknowledged that he knew that there was a protective order in place when he

went to Baker’s house on December 29.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 5 of 10 [10] The trial court determined that Coy had violated the conditions of his

community corrections placement as alleged. The trial court revoked Coy’s

community corrections placement in the COS program and ordered him to

serve the remaining portion of his sentence, 686 days, in the Indiana

Department of Correction. Coy now appeals.

Decision [11] Coy argues that the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) revoking his

community corrections placement; and (2) ordering him to serve his remaining

sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction. We will address each

argument in turn.

1. Revocation of Probation

[12] Coy challenges the trial court’s determination that he violated the terms of his

community corrections placement by committing the new offenses of burglary

and battery.

[13] We review a trial court’s ruling on a petition to revoke a defendant’s placement

in a community corrections program the same as we do for a ruling on petition

to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied.

“A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a

community corrections program.” Id. “Rather, placement in either is a matter

of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. (citations and

internal quotation marks omitted). A hearing on a petition to revoke placement

in a community corrections program is civil in nature, and “the State need only Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 6 of 10 prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. “We will

consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial

court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.”

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 a revocation. Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d

618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[14] Here, the trial court determined that Coy had violated the terms of his

community corrections placement as alleged in the petition to revoke, which

included allegations that Coy had: (1) committed new criminal offenses,

including burglary, battery, residential entry, and invasion of privacy; and (2)

failed to report to the Community Justice Center to serve his sentence from this

[15] Coy, however, challenges the trial court’s determination on only two of the

violations. Specifically, he contends that “[t]he finding of violation for the

commission of battery and burglary are not supported by substantially reliable

or trustworthy hearsay” evidence as required under Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d

438, 440 (Ind. 2007), reh’g denied. (Coy’s Br. 14). Coy contends that Officer

Lanane’s testimony about what Baker’s daughter had told him at the scene was

not substantially trustworthy under Reyes and was the only evidence upon

which the trial court could have found that he had committed the new offenses

of battery and burglary.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 7 of 10 [16] We, however, need not determine if the challenged evidence was substantially

trustworthy under Reyes. Even if we were to decide that the evidence had been

erroneously admitted, any such error would constitute harmless error. See,

e.g., Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (explaining that

admission of evidence in a probation revocation hearing is harmless error if

there are independent grounds for a court to revoke probation). Aside from the

officer’s challenged testimony, the State presented testimony that Coy went to

Baker’s house knowing that she had a protective order against him, that he

entered her house without permission, and that he failed to report as required to

the Community Justice Center to serve his sentence for this underlying cause in

the COS program. Because there was evidence sufficient to show that Coy had

violated the terms of his community corrections placement, we affirm the trial

court’s revocation of that placement. See Hubbard, 683 N.E.2d at 622

(explaining that a single probation violation was sufficient to revoke probation).

2. Order to Serve Remainder of Sentence in Prison

[17] Coy also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to

serve his remaining sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction.

[18] Placement in community corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court.

Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). A trial court “may,

at the time of sentencing, suspend the sentence and order a person to be placed

in a community corrections program as an alternative to the department of

correction.” IND. CODE § 35-38-2.6-3(a). Upon determining that a defendant

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 8 of 10 has violated a term of his community corrections, the trial court may “revoke

the placement and commit the person to the . . . department of correction for

the remainder of the person’s sentence.” See IND. CODE § 35-38-2.6-3. We

review a trial court’s decision in a community corrections proceeding for an

abuse of discretion. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App.

2007). An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the

logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184,

188 (Ind. 2007).

[19] The record reveals that the trial court had ample basis for its decision to order

Coy to serve his remaining sentence at the Indiana Department of Correction.

In this underlying cause, Coy was convicted of, among other things, Level 6

felony residential entry and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for

breaking into Baker’s home and violating a no contact order. Coy, who was on

parole at the time he committed those offenses, was already shown tremendous

leniency with his plea agreement in this underlying cause that allowed him to

serve his entire sentence on community corrections in the COS program. He,

however, squandered this opportunity. Within mere weeks of being released

from incarceration from his parole sanction in his reckless homicide cause,

Coy—knowing that there was a no contact order in place against him—went

without permission into Baker’s house. Equally egregious, Coy failed to report

as required to the Community Justice Center to begin his sentence from this

underlying cause in the COS program. As the trial court aptly noted when

revoking Coy’s community corrections placement and ordering him to serve his

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 9 of 10 remaining sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction, “it’s pretty clear .

. . that Mr. Coy really has no interest in trying to do anything in the

community” and “he doesn’t have any interest in following Court orders[.]”

(Tr. 55). Based on the record before us, we conclude that the trial court did not

abuse its discretion by revoking Coy’s community corrections placement and

ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence at the Indiana Department

of Correction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

[20] Affirmed.

Robb, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-700 | August 23, 2019 Page 10 of 10