Bruce L. Truett v. State of Indiana ( 2014 )

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
VALERIE K. BOOTS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
KATHERINE MODESITT COOPER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
Jun 18 2014, 9:45 am
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRUCE L. TRUETT, )
)
Appellant- Defendant, )
)
vs. )
) No. 49A02-1311-CR-926
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee- Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Mark Stoner, Judge
Cause Nos. 49G06-1105-FD-31212, 49G06-1106-FD-38900, 49G06-1207-FC-51223,
49G06-1301-FC-5427
June 18, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CRONE, Judge
Case Summary
Bruce L. Truett appeals the trial court’s order revoking his placement in community
corrections and sentencing him to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) to serve
three of his six years. Truett contends that the trial court abused its discretion in doing so.
Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
In June 2012, Truett pled guilty to two counts of class D felony operating a vehicle
while a habitual traffic offender under cause numbers 49G06-1105-FD-31212 (“FD-31212”)
and 49G06-1106-FD-38900 (“FD-38900”). The trial court ordered Truett to serve
consecutive 365-day sentences on home detention. In January 2013, Truett pled guilty to
class C felony operating a vehicle after license forfeited for life under cause number 49G06-
1207-FC-51223 (“FC-51223”). The court ordered Truett to serve a two-year sentence on
home detention consecutive to the sentences in FD-31212 and FD-38900.
In May 2013, Truett admitted that he violated the conditions of his home detention
under cause numbers FD-31212 and FD-38900. The trial court modified Truett’s placement
from home detention to the work release component of community corrections. Truett also
pled guilty to class C felony operating a vehicle after license forfeited for life under cause
number 49G06-1301-FC-5427 (“FC-5427”). The trial court sentenced Truett to two years on
work release consecutive to his sentences in FD-31212, FD-38900, and FC-51223.
2
In September 2013, the State filed notices of violation in all four cases alleging that
Truett violated the conditions of his placement by failing to return to the Duvall Residential
Center (“Center”). The notices alleged that on July 9, 2013, Truett left the Center on an
emergency medical pass. On July 10, 2013, the Center received notice that Truett was
discharged at 12:14 a.m. on July 10, 2013. As of 3:40 a.m., Truett still had not returned to
the Center. The Center’s policy states that a resident who does not return two hours after
their scheduled time is designated a “failure to return.” App. 193. All attempts to contact
Truett were unsuccessful until he was arrested at his brother’s house on new charges on
August 7, 2013.
At a hearing held in October 2013, Truett stated that he “got into it” with a person
from the Center while he was at the hospital. Tr. at 7. He also stated that the person
threatened him and that he did not want to go back to the Center because he was “scared for
his life.” Id. However, when questioned by the trial court, he could not provide a name for
the person who threatened him. Truett admitted that he violated the conditions of his
placement by failing to timely return to the Center.
The trial court revoked Truett’s community corrections placement and ordered him to
serve three of his six years in the DOC, with the remainder to be served in a work release
program. Truett now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
Placement in community corrections is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty
that is a favor, not a right.” Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
3
(quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). “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.” Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2010). Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-5 governs violations of community
correction placements and reads as follows:
If a person who is placed under this chapter violates the terms of the
placement, the court may, after a hearing, do any of the following:
(1) Change the terms of the placement.
(2) Continue the placement.
(3) Revoke the placement and commit the person to the department of
correction for the remainder of the person’s sentence.
(Emphasis added.) When reviewing the trial court’s decision to revoke placement, we use an
abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). An abuse of
discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court. Id. A single violation is sufficient to warrant revocation.
Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).
Truett argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community
corrections placement. Here, Truett admitted to violating the conditions of his placement by
leaving the Center and not returning. He states that he was fearful after a confrontation at the
hospital with another man from his facility. We find Truett’s argument unpersuasive.
In Toomey, the court held that the defendant’s failure to return to community
corrections for four days after his scheduled return time was sufficient for revocation of his
placement in community corrections. 887 N.E.2d at 125. In the present case, Truett failed to
return for over thirty days. Moreover, we note that Truett also violated the conditions of his
4
home detention. Based on the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s
revocation of Truett’s community corrections placement. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BAKER, J., and BARNES, J., concur.
5