Thomas A. Wallace v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2018 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 28 2018, 10:16 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
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
Derick W. Steele Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Kokomo, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Thomas A. Wallace, November 28, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-359
v. Appeal from the Howard Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable William C.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Menges, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
34D01-1606-F4-604
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-359 | November 28, 2018 Page 1 of 5
Statement of the Case
[1] Thomas A. Wallace appeals the trial court’s revocation of his placement on in-
home detention. Wallace raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether
the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his placement.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In September of 2016, Wallace pleaded guilty to possession of a narcotic drug,
as a Level 5 felony, and unlawful possession of a syringe, a Level 6 felony. The
trial court accepted Wallace’s plea agreement and, pursuant to that agreement,
ordered him to serve a five-year aggregate sentence, with two years of in-home
detention and three years suspended to probation.
[4] In January of 2017, the State filed a notice of noncompliance with the terms of
in-home detention on the ground that Wallace had failed to properly report and
communicate with appropriate officials, but the State later withdrew its notice
upon Wallace’s compliance. In March, the State filed a second notice of
noncompliance due to failed drug tests, Wallace’s failure to communicate, and
his failure to seek employment. Wallace admitted to the State’s allegations, and
the court ordered him to return to his placement on in-home detention.
[5] In November, the State filed its third notice of noncompliance on the ground
that Wallace had failed six drug tests, had failed to take an additional test, had
not attended required weekly meetings and other required classes, and had, on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-359 | November 28, 2018 Page 2 of 5
multiple occasions, visited locations that had not been approved by appropriate
staff. Although Wallace had initially reached an agreement with the State to
resolve the third notice, the trial court rejected the putative agreement. At an
ensuing hearing, Wallace admitted to the State’s allegations. The court then
revoked Wallace’s placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his
previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision
[6] Wallace challenges the trial court’s revocation of his in-home detention. As we
have explained, a defendant “is not entitled to serve a sentence in either
probation or a community corrections program.” Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d
688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Rather, placement in either is a matter of grace
and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Id. (quotation marks
omitted). And a revocation hearing is civil in nature; as such, the State “need
only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. On
appeal, 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. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative
value to support the trial court’s conclusion that a defendant has violated any
terms of his placement, we will affirm its decision to revoke that placement. Id.
[7] On appeal, Wallace asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it
revoked his placement on in-home detention. In particular, he asserts that he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-359 | November 28, 2018 Page 3 of 5
was “attempting to be productive and has maintained employment”; that
“rehabilitation is not served by simply throwing [him] aside when the process is
difficult”; and that “the main goals and concerns of sentencing should not be
ignored merely for the ease and efficiency of the court.” Appellant’s Br. at 7.
[8] Wallace also asserts that the primary goal of sentencing is rehabilitation and
that the same considerations should apply in a probation revocation
proceeding. That is not the correct standard to apply in reviewing a sentence
imposed following the revocation of probation. As we have already noted,
probation is a matter of grace and not a matter of right.
[9] Further, Wallace’s arguments are simply a request for this Court to reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. The evidence most favorable to the trial court’s
judgment shows that Wallace had repeatedly violated the conditions of his
placement, and that he had first done so almost immediately after his placement
began. He had twice failed to comply with the conditions of his placement only
to have the trial court allow him to remain in his placement notwithstanding his
noncompliance.
[10] Those repeated opportunities aside, Wallace continued to violate the conditions
of his placement by failing numerous drug tests and visiting unapproved
locations. In light of Wallace’s failure to take advantage of the multiple
opportunities for his rehabilitation, as shown by his failure to comply with the
conditions of his placement outside of the Department of Correction, we cannot
say that the trial court abused its discretion. It was only after the State’s third
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-359 | November 28, 2018 Page 4 of 5
notice of noncompliance the court revoked Wallace’s placement and ordered
him to serve the balance of his previously suspended term in the Department of
Correction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
[11] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-359 | November 28, 2018 Page 5 of 5