Gregory C. Snodgrass v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Jul 30 2019, 9:54 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
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana
Evan Matthew Comer
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Gregory C. Snodgrass, July 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-559
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D01-1803-F2-927
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5
Case Summary
[1] Gregory Snodgrass (“Snodgrass”) pled guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine,
as a Level 2 felony,1 and received a sentence of eighteen years, with nine to be
served on home detention and nine on formal probation. Snodgrass appeals the
decision to revoke his home detention placement and commit him to the
Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). He raises a single issue:
whether the commitment to the DOC, as opposed to an inpatient rehabilitation
facility, is an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On September 12, 2018, Snodgrass was placed on home detention. Among the
conditions of his placement were that he must refrain from illegal drug use and
submit to drug screens administered through Vigo County Community
Corrections. On September 27, 2018, Snodgrass tested positive for
methamphetamine. He was sanctioned with a twenty-four hour lockdown. On
October 1 and October 30, 2018, Snodgrass again tested positive for
methamphetamine. He was sanctioned with forty-two hour and seventy-two
hour lockdowns, respectively. On November 29, 2018, December 6, 2018, and
December 10, 2018, Snodgrass again tested positive for methamphetamine.
1
Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5
[3] On December 18, 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Snodgrass’s
placement. On January 9, 2019, the trial court conducted a placement
revocation hearing and found Snodgrass had violated the terms of his direct
placement. At a dispositional hearing on February 7, 2019, the trial court
revoked Snodgrass’s placement and ordered him to serve nine years in the
DOC. Snodgrass now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[4] Snodgrass contends that the trial court erred in revoking his home detention
placement and ordering him to serve nine years of his sentence in the DOC.
Specifically, Snodgrass argues that the court did not consider alternatives and
should have placed him in a facility to treat his admitted addiction to
methamphetamine.
[5] Community corrections is a “program consisting of residential and work
release, electronic monitoring, day treatment, or day reporting.” Ind. Code §
35-38-2.6-2. The standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a
community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. Cox
v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999). The State need only have proven the
alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We consider all the
evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or
judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that a defendant has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5
violated any term of community corrections, we will affirm the trial court’s
decision to revoke placement. Id.[6] At the revocation hearing, case manager Jennifer Wallace testified that
Snodgrass was administered drug screens as a condition of his home detention
placement and he had failed multiple screens. Corresponding drug screen
reports disclosed that Snodgrass tested positive for methamphetamine on six
occasions. Snodgrass testified that he was addicted to methamphetamine. As
such, he does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he
violated a term of his home detention placement. Rather, he asserts that the
trial court failed to consider “numerous local options available for Snodgrass to
receive inpatient treatment and still remain in his direct placement.”
Appellant’s Brief at 8.
[7] In McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), the appellant’s
direct commitment to community corrections was revoked after he tested
positive for drugs and violated rules of his work release center. We considered
his argument “that the court should have placed him back in the Work Release
Center or considered an alternative placement” and clarified that a defendant is
not entitled to choose where a sentence will be served:
Both probation and community corrections programs serve as
alternatives to commitment to the DOC, and both are made at
the sole discretion of the trial court. … A defendant is not
entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community
corrections program. Rather, placement in either is a “matter of
grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5
Id. at 1242 (internal citation omitted).
[8] Likewise, Snodgrass violated the terms of his placement, his placement was
revoked, and he had no entitlement to a future placement of his choice. In the
order committing Snodgrass to the DOC, the trial court observed that
Snodgrass “is not eligible for Vigo County Community Corrections,”
recommended completion of a Purposeful Incarceration program, and included
the language:
Upon successful completion of the clinically appropriate
substance abuse treatment program as determined by IDOC, the
court will consider a modification.
Appealed Order at 1. Snodgrass had previously been afforded sentencing
leniency and substance abuse treatment programs yet he continued to use
methamphetamine. He has no entitlement to inpatient treatment or the
continuance of his home detention placement.
Conclusion
[9] Finding no error, we affirm the order revoking Snodgrass’s direct placement
and ordering him to serve nine years of his sentence in the DOC.
[10] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and May, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5