Richard Wilson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

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