Richard Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 14, 2016
• Docket: 49A04-1603-CR-633
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 14 2016, 10:14 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Corey L. Scott Gregory F. Zoeller Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Richard Wilson, October 14, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A04-1603-CR-633 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Stanley E. Kroh, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G03-1407-F5-36845

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1603-CR-633 | October 14, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Richard Wilson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement in

community corrections (“home detention”). Wilson presents a single issue for

our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support

the revocation of his home detention. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On January 27, 2015, Wilson pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while

privileges are forfeited for life, a Level 5 felony. On February 27, the trial court

sentenced Wilson to five years, with three years executed on home detention,

and two years suspended. The terms of Wilson’s home detention provided that

he could not leave the house, other than for work, without permission from his

case manager. On February 18, 2016, Marion County Community Corrections

filed a notice of home detention violation, alleging in relevant part that Wilson

had left his home for four hours during the evening of January 30, 2016,

without permission.

[3] At a hearing on the notice of home detention violation, Wilson testified that his

case manager, Allison Shine, had given him permission to attend a dinner on

January 30, 2016, to celebrate his birthday. But Shine testified that she had not

given him permission to attend the dinner. At the conclusion of the hearing,

the trial court revoked Wilson’s home detention and ordered him to serve the

balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1603-CR-633 | October 14, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Discussion and Decision [4] Wilson appeals the trial court’s order revoking his placement on home

detention. Generally, a defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either

probation or a community corrections program. Hill v. State, 28 N.E.3d 348,

350 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “Rather, placement in either is a ‘matter of grace’

and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’” Monroe v. State, 899

N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549

(Ind. 1999)). Once a court has exercised this grace, the judge has considerable

leeway in deciding how to proceed. Hill, 28 N.E.3d at 350. It is thus within the

discretion of the court to determine the conditions of the defendant’s placement

and to revoke that placement if those conditions are violated. Id.

Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. 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 the witnesses. 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.

Monroe, 899 N.E.2d at 691 (citations omitted).

[5] Here, Wilson maintains that the evidence shows that there was “some

confusion” regarding whether he had asked for and obtained permission to

attend a birthday dinner at a restaurant on January 30, 2016. Appellant’s Br. at

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1603-CR-633 | October 14, 2016 Page 3 of 4 9. Regardless, Wilson asserts that “there was no evidence introduced at the

hearing that directly refuted” his testimony that, during a phone call on January

29, Shine had granted him permission for the outing. Id. at 10. We cannot

agree. Shine unequivocally testified that she did not grant Wilson permission to

leave his house to go to dinner on January 30, 2016. Wilson’s contentions on

appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.

The State presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s revocation of

Wilson’s home detention.

[6] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A04-1603-CR-633 | October 14, 2016 Page 4 of 4