Willie M. Taggett v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Sep 05 2019, 9:02 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.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Matthew T. Bates Attorney General of Indiana
Madison, Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Willie M. Taggett, September 5, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-3048
v. Appeal from the Ripley Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Jeffrey Sharp,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
69D01-1805-F6-118
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Willie Taggett argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked
his home detention and ordered him to execute 400 days of his sentence at the
Department of Correction (DOC).
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On May 30, 2018, Taggett pled guilty to Level 6 felony possession of
methamphetamine and Level 6 felony possession of a legend drug. 1 In
accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced
Taggett to consecutive terms of 730 days, all suspended to probation. On July
6, 2018, the State filed a petition for probation violation alleging that Taggett
twice tested positive for methamphetamine and failed to appear at a meeting
that was a required condition of his probation. At a July 12, 2018 hearing,
Taggett admitted to these violations, and the trial court revoked 730 days of his
probation and ordered him to serve 728 2 days on home detention.
[4] On October 3, 2018, the State filed a petition for home detention violation. The
State filed an amended petition on October 16, 2018, in which it alleged that
Taggett violated the terms of home detention by testing positive for
methamphetamine three times over a five-day period and by failing to pay
1
In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss three other drug-related offenses.
2
Taggett spent one day in jail after his arrest on the probation violation. The trial court therefore awarded
him “[c]redit for one actual, two with good time.” Transcript at 20.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 2 of 6
required fees, accruing an arrearage of over $1000. At a hearing on October 17,
2018, Taggett admitted to these violations, and the trial court ordered him to
serve 400 days of his previously suspended sentence at the DOC.
[5] Taggett filed a letter with the trial court on November 9, 2018, in which he
stated that the purpose of his letter was “to appeal the courts [sic] decision to
put [him] in jail for 6 months” and that he wanted the court “to reconsider” its
decision. Appellant’s Appendix Vol. 2 at 53, 54. The trial court scheduled a
hearing for November 21, 2018, to discuss the nature of Taggett’s letter. After
questioning Taggett, the trial court treated the letter as a motion for sentence
modification and denied Taggett’s request for relief. Taggett informed the court
that he wished to “appeal the sentence in this matter,” so the court appointed
counsel for purposes of perfecting an appeal. Transcript Vol. II at 51.
[6] Taggett filed his notice of appeal with this court on December 19, 2018. The
State filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely because it was not filed
within 30 days of the court’s October 17, 2018 order. In an order dated April
29, 2019, this court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, finding that because
Taggett asked the trial court to reconsider its October 17 ruling in his November
9 letter, such letter should be treated as a motion to correct error, which tolled
the time for filing a notice of appeal. As such, the motions panel concluded
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 3 of 6
that Taggett’s notice of appeal was timely filed. 3 Additional facts will be
provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
[7] Placement on probation or in a community corrections program is a matter of
grace and not a right. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999); Treece v.
State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. If a defendant
violates the terms of his placement in community corrections, the court may, at
the request of the community corrections director, revoke the placement and
commit the person to the DOC for the remainder of the person’s sentence. Ind.
Code § 35-38-2.6-5; see also Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App.
2008). We review a trial court’s sentencing decision in a probation revocation
proceeding for an abuse of discretion. Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 957
(Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most
favorable to the judgment and do not reweigh the evidence or judge the
credibility of the witnesses. Id. at 954-55.
3
The State filed a cross-appeal arguing that Taggett’s appeal is untimely and therefore, not properly before
us. It is true that a writing panel has “the inherent authority” to reconsider decisions of the motions panel
while an appeal remains pending. Haggerty v. Anonymous Party 1, 998 N.E.2d 286, 293 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
We, however, are reluctant to overrule a motions panel decision unless a more complete record “reveals clear
authority establishing that our motions panel erred.” Id. Having reviewed the record herein, we find no
reason to overrule the motion panel’s determination that Taggett’s letter to the court was to be treated as a
motion to correct error that tolled the period in which Taggett had to file his notice of appeal. See Ind.
Appellate Rule 9(A)(1) (stating that “if any party files a timely motion to correct error, a Notice of Appeal
must be filed within thirty (30) days after the court’s ruling on such motion is noted in the Chronological
Case Summary”). Taggett’s appeal is properly before us.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 4 of 6
[8] Taggett admitted to violating the terms of his placement on home detention by
testing positive for methamphetamine three times over the course of five days.
He also admitted that he was in arrears on his payments for court-ordered fees
in an amount exceeding $1000. In arguing that the trial court abused its
discretion in revoking his placement on home detention and ordering that he
serve 400 days at the DOC, Taggett notes that he admitted to his violations. He
also claims that his violations were “substantially related to his mental health
issues and his difficult circumstances providing for his mother” and that he has
taken “affirmative steps to deal with his issues and turn his life around.”
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
[9] Taggett is essentially requesting this court to reweigh the evidence, which we
will not do. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d at 954-55. In the five months since
the original sentence was imposed, this is the second time Taggett has been
brought before the court to answer for his violation of the terms of his
placement. The trial court placed Taggett on home detention after he admitted
to violating the terms of probation by using methamphetamine. Less than three
months later, Taggett violated the terms of home detention by again using
methamphetamine. Specifically, he tested positive for methamphetamine three
times during a five-day period from October 1, 2018 to October 5, 2018. Each
time he submitted a positive drug screen, Taggett denied his drug use. Taggett’s
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 5 of 6
violations in this regard 4 are significant and evince a clear pattern of drug use
that Taggett has taken no meaningful steps to stop. The court afforded Taggett
leniency following his first violation and was not required to exercise further
leniency after Taggett violated the terms of his placement a second time. The
trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Taggett’s placement on home
detention and ordering Taggett to serve 400 days at the DOC.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
Tavitas, J, concurs.
Brown, J., concurs in result without opinion.
4
In revoking Taggett’s community corrections placement, the trial court focused on Taggett’s positive drug
screens and did not reference his arrearage for fees.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-3048 | September 5, 2019 Page 6 of 6