Kevin L. Henson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jun 06 2018, 9:11 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
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
William Byer, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Byer & Byer Attorney General of Indiana
Anderson, Indiana
Michael Gene Worden
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Kevin L. Henson, June 6, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-189
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Warner
Appellee-Plaintiff. Sims, Judge
Trial Court Cause Nos.
48C01-1211-FD-2167
48C01-1605-F6-1063
48C01-1707-F6-1686
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Kevin L. Henson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement with a
problem-solving court. Henson raises a single issue for our review, namely,
whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the revocation of his
placement. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 13, 2017, the trial court placed Henson with a problem-solving
court after he had pleaded guilty in three separate causes of action. On
November 1, while a participant with the problem-solving court, Henson
admitted to Katie Stapleton, his case manager, that he had continued to have
relationships and communication with known felons, contrary to the rules of
the problem-solving court. He further admitted to dealing in controlled
substances.
[3] The State filed a notice of termination request in all three cause numbers, and
the trial court held a consolidated evidentiary hearing on the State’s notice. At
that hearing, Henson admitted that he had violated the problem-solving court’s
rule with respect to having continued relationships and communications with
known felons. However, he denied dealing in controlled substances. On that
allegation, Stapleton testified that she had seen text messages on Henson’s
phone that suggested he had been dealing in controlled substances, and when
she confronted him about those messages he admitted that “he had dealt on at
least one occasion to pay his work release rent so he could get out of work
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 2 of 5
release . . . .” Tr. Vol. I at 14. Stapleton further testified that Henson had
admitted at least one time in court to dealing, and that she had recorded that
hearing.
[4] Following the evidentiary hearing, the court took the matter under advisement
to review the recordings of the problem-solving court. Thereafter, in light of
those recordings and the testimony from the evidentiary hearing, the court
found that Henson had violated the terms and conditions of the problem-
solving court, and it terminated him from that placement accordingly. The
court then ordered Henson to serve the balance of his term in the Department
of Correction. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Henson appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement with the problem-
solving court. Placement in forensic diversion programs such as our problem-
solving courts are akin to placements in community corrections and probation.
Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 665 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Placement in such
programs is “a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a
right.” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State,
706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). It is within the discretion of the trial court to
determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are
violated. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). In appeals from trial
court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of
discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 3 of 5
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial
court misinterprets the law. Id.
[6] Henson argues on appeal that his admission to violating the problem-solving
court’s rule against communication with known felons “did not warrant
revocation” by itself. Appellant’s Br. at 18. He further argues that his own
testimony during the evidentiary hearing should be given controlling weight, as
he testified that his text messages were about other matters and were
misconstrued. And he asserts that this Court should not credit Stapleton’s
testimony.
[7] We reject Henson’s arguments. Henson’s admission alone is sufficient to affirm
the trial court’s judgment to revoke his placement. E.g., Pierce v. State, 44
N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). And Stapleton’s testimony, which we
will not reweigh on appeal, further supports the trial court’s judgment. Again,
Stapleton testified that she found suspicious text messages on Henson’s phone
and that, when she confronted him about those texts, he admitted to dealing in
order to pay his work release rent. Henson’s argument that we ignore that
testimony or otherwise discount it in favor of his own testimony is simply a
request for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do. We affirm
the trial court’s revocation of Henson’s placement with the problem-solving
court.
[8] Affirmed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Robb, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-189 | June 6, 2018 Page 5 of 5