Brent R. Gilbert v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 16 2014, 9:15 am
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:
MARK SMALL GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
BRENT R. GILBERT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 28A04-1312-CR-613
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM GREENE SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Dena A. Martin, Judge
Cause No. 28D01-0908-FB-390
June 16, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
KIRSCH, Judge
Brent R. Gilbert appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his placement in
community corrections, contending that the trial court abused its discretion by committing
him to the Department of Correction. Because Gilbert has failed to demonstrate an abuse
of discretion, we must affirm the trial court’s order.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 14, 2009, the State charged Gilbert in Greene County with one count of
Class B felony dealing in a schedule II controlled substance, one count of Class C felony
possession of methamphetamine with a firearm, one count of Class D felony possession of
a chemical reagent or precursor with the intent to manufacture, one count of Class D felony
maintaining a common nuisance, one count of Class A misdemeanor possession of
anhydrous ammonia in an improper container, and one count of Class A misdemeanor
possession of marijuana. The State later filed a request for an habitual offender sentence
enhancement.
Gilbert and the State entered into a plea agreement, which was rejected by the trial
court. On April 23, 2010, the State filed a petition to revoke Gilbert’s surety bond, alleging
that while released on bond, Gilbert had committed several felonies and a misdemeanor in
Vigo County. At the conclusion of the bond revocation hearing held on May 3, 2010, the
trial court revoked Gilbert’s bond.
On October 8, 2010, Gilbert and the State entered into a negotiated plea agreement
whereby Gilbert would plead guilty to one count of Class B felony dealing in
methamphetamine and would be sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment at the Indiana
Department of Correction with twelve years executed and four years suspended to
2
supervised probation. In exchange for Gilbert’s plea, the State agreed to dismiss the
remaining counts against Gilbert including the habitual substance offender request and the
charges under a separate cause number in Greene County. On November 12, 2010, the
trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Gilbert to sixteen years imprisonment
with four years suspended to supervised probation pursuant to the terms of the plea
agreement.
On May 31, 2012, Gilbert filed a letter with the trial court alleging that he had cancer
and requesting that the trial court hold a hearing. By an order entered on June 5, 2012, the
trial court denied Gilbert’s request, citing to the terms of the plea agreement, which did not
contain a reservation of rights by which the trial court could modify Gilbert’s negotiated
sentence. On November 15, 2012, Gilbert filed a petition to modify his sentence and
placement, again alleging that he had been diagnosed with stage 4 cancer while
incarcerated. Gilbert requested a modification of his sentence to placement on home
detention so that he could be close to his family and continue to receive necessary
treatment. Gilbert also informed the trial court that the State had been consulted about
Gilbert’s requested and would leave the question of sentence modification to the trial
court’s discretion.
On January 7, 2013, the trial court issued its order granting Gilbert’s petition to
modify his sentence and placement, and ordering Gilbert to serve the remainder of his
sentence on home detention. Gilbert was committed to the Greene County Community
Corrections Home Detention program for the remainder of his sentence provided that
Gilbert complied with the rules and regulations of that program. The order also specified
3
that if the Executive Director had an articulable suspicion that Gilbert was failing to comply
with the rules and regulations of his placement, the Executive Director was authorized to
transfer Gilbert to the Greene County Jail and file a written report to the trial court advising
the trial court of the imprisonment. The Executive Director was also required to seek a
modification of Gilbert’s commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction in that
event.
Gilbert began his home detention on May 2, 2013, and was advised of the rules and
conditions of that placement by his case worker, Gregg Roudebush. Those terms and
conditions included that Gilbert should violate no laws, should be of good character, and
should comply with all conditions set forth in his order of probation. A standard condition
of Gilbert’s probation was the prohibition against using, possessing, or transporting any
alcoholic beverage or using any controlled substance unless prescribed by a physician.
On October 3, 2013, at Roudebush’s request, Community Corrections field officer
Donald Fish conducted a home visit at Gilbert’s residence to check on his well-being.
Gilbert had contacted Roudebush to inform him that Gilbert’s prescription medications had
been stolen a few days earlier. When Fish arrived at Gilbert’s home at 10:30 a.m., Fish
could hear Gilbert in the back bedroom yelling and cussing. Fish continued to knock on
the door. Gilbert answered the door yelling and cussing things like, “who the ‘f’ was
there,” and “what the ‘f’ was going on.” Tr. at 14. Fish thought that this behavior was
very unusual because Gilbert had not acted that way on prior visits. Gilbert, who was on
the telephone, opened the door and allowed Fish to enter the house. Gilbert continued to
curse and appeared to be irate. Gilbert lived with his parents, but neither of them were
4
present at that time. The house was a mess, which was the complete opposite of what Fish
had observed on prior visits.
Fish sat and talked with Gilbert in an effort to calm him. During the course of their
conversation Fish observed some of Gilbert’s medications on the coffee table, but could
not discern what the medications were. Fish spoke with Gilbert about his medication
because of Gilbert’s prior report to Roudebush about the theft of his medications. Gilbert
told Fish that he had contacted the Sheriff’s Department about the stolen medication and
that he was in the process of getting some of them back. Gilbert began to calm down and
Fish left, returning to Gilbert’s house later in the day to check on him. Upon his return to
the Community Corrections office, Fish reported to Roudebush about his observations at
Gilbert’s house including Gilbert’s irrational behavior. After listening to Fish’s report,
Roudebush decided to call Gilbert into the office for a drug screen, but Gilbert could not
secure transportation.
On the morning of October 31, 2013, Roudebush called to have Gilbert come in for
a drug screen, but Gilbert again could not find transportation to the office. Roudebush then
made the decision to conduct a home visit in order to accomplish the drug screen.
Roudebush and Fish drove to Gilbert’s residence and arrived at approximately 10:30 a.m.
Two of Gilbert’s friends were at the residence at that time, but remained in the back
bedroom.
Fish and Roudebush observed bottles of pills on the coffee table and pills scattered
on the coffee table and an end table. Roudebush asked to see Gilbert’s medications. Gilbert
did not seem to know where his medications were and wandered around the house in search
5
of them. Gilbert handed Roudebush a bottle of Lorazepam, a prescription that had been
filled on October 29, 2013 for 60 pills. Roudebush counted the pills in the bottle and
discovered that the bottle contained only 25 pills when, if taken as prescribed, there should
have been at least 54 pills. Roudebush confronted Gilbert about the missing pills. Gilbert
first explained that he did not like to take the pills because they were very strong, so he
decided to flush the pills down the toilet. After further questioning, Gilbert admitted that
he gave the missing pills to someone, but was “messed up,” and did not remember to whom
he gave the medication. Id. at 36.
Roudebush obtained a urine sample from Gilbert for the drug screen. The screen
gave a positive result for Gilbert’s prescription medications and also for the presence of
methamphetamine. Fish was in the room when Roudebush confronted Gilbert about the
positive results of the drug screen for the presence of methamphetamine. Initially, Gilbert
denied ingesting methamphetamine, but eventually admitted that he “did a line” two days
prior. Id. Gilbert told Roudebush that he had traded the Lorazepam pills to his brother in
exchange for the methamphetamine. Gilbert then signed an admission that he did take the
methamphetamine, which constituted a violation of the rules and regulations of the
community corrections program. A laboratory analysis of Gilbert’s urine sample
confirmed the presence of methamphetamine.
While Roudebush had been counting Gilbert’s medications and conducting the drug
screen, Fish was looking around Gilbert’s house. Fish went into the bedroom where
Gilbert’s friends had remained and observed on an end table a gallon jug of water, shredded
cotton balls, and two small bottles of Coleman water purification tablets, all of which are
6
used to ingest illegal drugs. Fish asked Gilbert about the Coleman tablets. Although
Gilbert responded that he used them when he went camping, both Fish and Roudebush
knew that Gilbert was on home detention and had not been camping. Fish and Roudebush
subsequently returned to the end table in the bedroom and discovered that the Coleman
tablets had been moved, the shredded cotton balls were gone, and Gilbert’s friends were
no longer there.
The next day, Roudebush returned to Gilbert’s residence to check on him and to
conduct another pill count. The pill count was accurate. Roudebush again inquired about
the Coleman tablets and told Gilbert that they were ineffective in masking
methamphetamine for purposes of a drug screen. Gilbert replied that he was aware of that
and changed his story about where he obtained the methamphetamine. Gilbert claimed that
he did not get the methamphetamine from his brother, but had told Roudebush that story
because he was angry with his brother. Gilbert changed his story to reflect that he had
obtained the methamphetamine from the friends who were present at Gilbert’s house when
Roudebush and Fish were there the day before.
On November 26, 2013, Greene County Community Corrections officers filed a
petition to modify Gilbert’s placement alleging that on October 31, 2013, Gilbert was given
a drug screen and had tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine. The petition
also alleged that Gilbert had admitted to Roudebush and Fish that he had used
methamphetamine and that he traded approximately thirty pills from his Lorazepam
prescription for the methamphetamines. At the conclusion of the probation revocation
hearing, the trial court found that Gilbert had failed to comply with the rules and regulations
7
of his placement. The trial court modified Gilbert’s commitment and ordered him to serve
the remainder of his twelve-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Gilbert now
appeals.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Gilbert appeals from the trial court’s order revoking his probation, contending that
the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him to serve the remainder of his twelve-
year sentence in the Department of Correction. We begin with the premise that
“[p]robation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal
defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “[C]ourts in
probation revocation hearings may consider any relevant evidence bearing some
substantial indicia of reliability.” Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999). It is
within the discretion of the trial court to determine the conditions of a defendant’s
probation and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at
188. In a sense, all probation requires “strict compliance” because probation is a matter of
grace, and once the trial court extends this grace and sets its terms and conditions, the
probationer is expected to comply with them strictly. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 641
(Ind. 2008). If the probationer fails to do so, then a violation has occurred. Id. But even
in the face of a probation violation, the trial court may nonetheless exercise its discretion
in deciding whether to revoke probation. Id. (citing Clark Cnty. Council v. Donahue, 873
N.E.2d 1038, 1039 (Ind. 2007) (“The probationary scheme is deliberately designed to give
trial judges the flexibility to make quick, case-by-case determinations.”)).
8
Violation determinations and sanctions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. An
abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the
facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d
at 188. We consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing
that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639 (citing
Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995)). If there is substantial evidence of
probative value to support the trial court’s decision that a defendant has violated any terms
of probation, the reviewing court will affirm its decision to revoke probation. Id. at 639-
40.
Probation revocation is a two-step process. First, the trial court must make a factual
determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Beeler v. State,
959 N.E.2d 828, 829-30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Second, if a violation is found, then the trial
court must determine the appropriate sanction for the violation. Id. A probation revocation
hearing is civil in nature, and the State’s burden is to prove the alleged violations only by
a preponderance of the evidence. Figures v. State, 920 N.E.2d 267, 272 (Ind. Ct. App.
2010). Violation of a single term or condition of probation is sufficient to revoke probation.
Washington v. State, 758 N.E.2d 1014, 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). When reviewing an
appeal from the revocation of probation, the reviewing court considers only the evidence
most favorable to the judgment, and does so without reweighing the evidence or
reassessing the credibility of the witnesses. Piper v. State, 770 N.E.2d 880, 882 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2002).
9
Gilbert admitted to Roudebush that he violated the terms of his placement in
community corrections by using and testing positive for methamphetamine. Thus, Gilbert
is not challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his probation revocation, but
is challenging his placement in the Department of Correction.
Indiana Code section 35-38-2-3 provides leeway to the trial court in terms of its
disposition upon the finding of a probation violation. Although Gilbert presents an
argument akin to that made when sentences are reviewed under Indiana Appellate Rule
7(b), in the context of a trial court’s sentencing decisions for probation violations, the
standard of review is for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 188. “A trial
court’s action in a post-sentence probation violation proceeding is not a criminal sentence
as contemplated by the rule. The review and revise remedy of App. R. 7(B) is not
available.” Jones v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 2008).
Community corrections programs consist of residential and work release, electronic
monitoring, day treatment, or day reporting. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-2. “Alternative
sentences such as probation and community corrections serve the humane purposes of
avoiding incarceration and of permitting the offender to meet the offender’s financial
obligations.” Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 550.
The trial court exercised its discretion by modifying Gilbert’s sentence to allow for
his placement in the community corrections program. Gilbert responded to this leniency
by testing positive for methamphetamine in a drug screen, and the result was confirmed in
a laboratory analysis. Gilbert admitted to Roudebush and Fish that he had used
methamphetamine he obtained by trading approximately thirty pills of Lorazepam. Gilbert
10
signed a written admission that he had used methamphetamine and that to do so was a
violation of the rules and regulations of the community corrections program.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion by returning Gilbert to his placement in
the Department of Correction. Gilbert failed to follow the rules and it was within the trial
court’s discretion to order that Gilbert serve the remainder of his twelve-year sentence
executed in the Department of Correction. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952, 957-58
(Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (trial court has discretion to order defendant to serve entire suspended
sentence).
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.
11