Lana Anderson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2016 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jul 28 2016, 9:15 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
Kurt A. Young Gregory F. Zoeller
Nashville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Justin F. Roebel
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lana Anderson, July 28, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Cause No.
49A02-1511-CR-1919
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G03-1410-FB-46265
Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1919 | July 28, 2016 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Lana Anderson appeals her placement in the Department of Correction
(“DOC”) after the revocation of her placement in community corrections. We
affirm.
Issue
[2] Anderson raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its
discretion by ordering that she serve her sentence in the DOC after it revoked
her placement in community corrections.
Facts
[3] In October 2014, the State charged Anderson with Class B felony operating a
vehicle with a Schedule I or II controlled substance causing death and Class C
felony reckless homicide. In December 2014, Anderson pled guilty to Class C
felony reckless homicide, and the State dismissed the remaining charge.
Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Anderson
to six years in community corrections. The trial court ordered Anderson to
“comply with all rules, regulations, treatment recommendations, procedures,
and pay all fees of Community Corrections” as well as obtain a GED, obtain a
mental health evaluation/treatment, take weekly drug tests, take all prescribed
medication, and obtain job skills training. App. p. 45.
[4] Anderson was placed at the Theodora House for her community corrections
placement. In July 2015, Marion County Community Corrections
(“Community Corrections”) filed a notice of community corrections violation,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1919 | July 28, 2016 Page 2 of 5
which alleged that Anderson had failed to follow Theodora House rules, failed
to follow rules regarding seeking and obtaining employment, and failed to
attend court-ordered programs. At the September 2015 hearing regarding her
community corrections violations, evidence was presented that Anderson
attended only one GED class although the classes were offered weekly at the
Theodora House. Anderson received a mental health evaluation at Midtown,
but she failed to attend monthly meetings with her therapist and weekly group
meetings. Anderson also often received passes to apply for jobs, but she did not
use most of the passes and failed to obtain employment. Community
Corrections found a part-time cleaning job for Anderson at a “sister location,”
but Anderson did not go. Tr. p. 26. The trial court found that Anderson failed
to follow the Theodora House rules, failed to follow the rules regarding seeking
and obtaining employment, and failed to attend court-ordered programming.
The trial court then revoked Anderson’s placement in community corrections
and ordered that she serve the six-year sentence in the DOC. Anderson now
appeals.
Analysis
[5] Anderson argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered her to
serve her sentence in the DOC after it revoked her placement in community
corrections. Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-5 provides that if a person violates
the terms of the placement, the community corrections director may: change
the terms of the placement, continue the placement, reassign the person to a
different community corrections program, or “request that the court revoke the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1919 | July 28, 2016 Page 3 of 5
placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction
for the remainder of the person’s sentence.” 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). Like probation, a defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in a
community corrections program. Id. Rather, such placement is a matter of
grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. Once a trial court
has exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how
to proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. Prewitt v. State, 878
N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decisions
for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard.”
Id. We will find an abuse of discretion only where the decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.
[6] Community Corrections proved that Anderson violated several rules of her
placement. Anderson argues that these violations were “technical” and did not
warrant her placement in the DOC. Appellant’s Br. p. 13. Anderson argues
that, due to her physical and mental health, she was not able to go directly into
the workforce. She notes that, after being returned to the Marion County Jail,
she has made progress on taking GED classes and other classes.
[7] Community Corrections demonstrated that, during Anderson’s six months at
its facility, she attended only one GED class, failed to attend her mental health
appointments at Midtown, and failed to obtain employment. A Theodora
House employee testified that she often found Anderson in bed. Although
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1919 | July 28, 2016 Page 4 of 5
Theodora House gave Anderson many opportunities and much support, she
made minimal effort to comply with the trial court’s orders or the community
corrections rules. In discussing Anderson’s progress made while in the Marion
County Jail, the trial court noted that Anderson “needed to be locked up in jail
in order to focus on the things that the Court wanted [her] to focus on . . . .”
Tr. p. 78. The trial court did set a hearing to review Anderson’s sentence and
get a progress report from the DOC to see if Anderson was taking the
opportunity to rehabilitate herself. Given Anderson’s failure to take advantage
of the opportunities at Theodora House, the trial court’s revocation of
Anderson’s placement in community corrections and her placement in the
DOC was not an abuse of discretion.
Conclusion
[8] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Anderson’s
placement in community corrections and ordered her to serve her sentence in
the DOC. We affirm.
[9] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1511-CR-1919 | July 28, 2016 Page 5 of 5