Robert Scrogham v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 13, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2692
• 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 Apr 13 2020, 9:56 am

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 Devon M. Sharpe Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Jenner & Pattison Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana Marjorie Lawyer-Smith Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Scrogham, April 13, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2692 v. Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Eugene Stewart, Appellee-Plaintiff. Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 39C01-1106-FB-510

Brown, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 1 of 5 [1] Robert Scrogham appeals the revocation of his placement in community

corrections. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In December 2011, Scrogham pled guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a

class B felony, and in February 2012 the trial court sentenced him to ten years

and ordered him to serve six years at the Department of Correction (“DOC”)

and four years in the Jefferson County Community Corrections Program

subject to the program’s conditions.

[3] On April 15, 2019, Scrogham’s community corrections case manager filed a

petition to revoke stating Scrogham was released from the DOC on January 27,

2016, and alleging he admitted to using Tramadol in July 2018 and

methamphetamine in December 2018 and failed to (a) report to office

appointments on seven dates, and (b) call the random drug screen line as

directed and report for random drug screens on numerous occasions. It also

alleged that he signed a therapeutic adjustment due to his use of Tramadol,

pursuant to which he “was to start Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT),” and an

administrative agreement for failing to attend appointments and admitting to

methamphetamine use, and that he was not in compliance with those

agreements. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 145. On July 15, 2019, the

court issued an order stating it held a hearing and Scrogham “admitted to

violating the terms of his supervision by failing to report, by failing drug

screens, and by failing to pay fees.” Id. at 158.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 2 of 5 [4] On August 5, 2019, the court held a hearing at which Scrogham’s community

corrections case manager testified “we’ve tried to do MRT a couple times,” “I

tried to do it one-on-one with him just to make it easier for him,” “[t]hat didn’t

work out,” he “didn’t bring his books, stuff like that, so I ended up having to

make him do it in a group.” Transcript Volume II at 5. The case manager also

testified “[h]e didn’t go to that, and he had tried to MRT in the past as well, as

well as some other treatment interventions, and since he’s been on with us I

don’t think any of those have been successful,” “[s]o at this point I feel like

we’ve kind of exhausted our efforts on what we can do as far as his treatment

intervention, that type of thing,” and “I just don’t think there’s really any

options on our program.” Id.

[5] Scrogham testified he worked for a tree service and his employment was still

available to him, and he submitted a letter from his employer which stated he

was a dependable and valuable employee. He indicated he had a substance

abuse problem and that there were no pending charges against him. He stated

he was clean when he was released from prison. When asked how he ended up

backsliding and using again, Scrogham replied: “Man, I get out and meth is

cheaper and more plentiful now, man. I mean before you had to make it to get

it. Now it’s everywhere, and that’s the God honest truth.” Id. at 17. He

indicated he relapsed on methamphetamine. When asked “they tried to get you

into what’s called the MRT program,” he testified “that’s exactly right,”

“[m]an, but I tell you what, between being strung out and working like –

working all day, man, it was hard making the classes at the time,” and “I didn’t

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 3 of 5 . . . have no vehicle to make it just right on time, and getting a ride was pretty

substantial at times and – but mostly it was because I was too tired to go to

them.” Id. He testified that, while incarcerated, he was the victim of a crime

when four inmates beat him, and that he was a trustee while in the jail and

cooked, cleaned, washed dishes, and served food. When asked what steps he

would take to avoid relapsing in the future, he answered “[w]ork harder and eat

more.” Id. at 20. He also indicated he would obtain substance abuse treatment.

[6] The court ordered that Scrogham serve the remainder of his sentence in the

DOC. The order also states: “The Court recommends [Scrogham] be evaluated

for Recovery While Incarcerated. Upon successful completion of the clinically

appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the [DOC],

the Court will consider a modification to this sentence.” Appellant’s Appendix

Volume II at 163.

Discussion

[7] Scrogham asserts he took responsibility for his violations and understands his

substance abuse must be addressed. He argues he was employed and is able to

return to work, he illustrated his willingness to be productive by being a trustee

at the jail, he could receive no benefit by placement in the DOC, the sanction is

extreme and does not comport with his violations, and home detention or

electronic monitoring would have sufficed to ensure his continued compliance

with the community corrections program.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 4 of 5 [8] We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke placement in a community

corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke

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

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

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

Id. at 551. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial

court’s conclusion, we will affirm its decision. Id. 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 defendant’s placement there is a

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

[9] The record reveals that Scrogham was released from the DOC in January 2016,

was clean at the time of his release, and relapsed on methamphetamine. His

case manager testified he did not complete MRT one-on-one or in a group,

none of the treatment interventions were successful, and he had exhausted his

options on the program. The trial court’s order placing him at the DOC

recommends that he be evaluated for Recovery While Incarcerated and states

that, upon successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program, the

court will consider a sentence modification. Based upon the record, we

conclude that substantial evidence of probative value supports the trial court’s

conclusion and affirm the order.

[10] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 5 of 5