James Mathis v. State of Indiana

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
November 25 2013, 5:53 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
PATRICIA CARESS McMATH GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
J.T. WHITEHEAD
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JAMES MATHIS, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1305-CR-399
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, Commissioner
Cause No. 49F24-1211-FD-76150
November 25, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BRADFORD, Judge
CASE SUMMARY
Appellant-Defendant James Mathis appeals the trial court’s decision to place him
with the Department of Correction (“DOC”) after he was thrice found to have violated
terms of his community corrections placement. Most recently, while on work release,
Mathis both violated conditions of an employment pass and failed to return to his
residential center. Mathis does not dispute that he committed these violations; rather, he
claims they were necessary under the circumstances. Finding no abuse of the trial court’s
discretion, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 27, 2012, Mathis pled guilty to Class D felony auto theft, receiving
stolen parts. Pursuant to a plea agreement with Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana,
Mathis was sentenced to 545 days of home detention with the Marion County
Community Corrections Program (“Community Corrections”). Seven days after
sentencing, Community Corrections filed a notice of violation against Mathis. A hearing
was held on December 11, 2012, during which Mathis admitted to three of four alleged
violations, and the trial court modified his placement to work release. Forty-three days
later, Community Corrections filed notice of a second violation. A hearing was held on
February 1, 2013, during which the trial court found Mathis to have violated conditions
of his work release. The court admonished Mathis that further violations would result in
his placement with the DOC but allowed him to remain on work release.
Twenty-five days later, Community Corrections filed notice of a third violation,
which underlies the instant matter. The notice alleged that, on February 26, 2013, Mathis
2
signed out of his residential center on an employment pass but did not report to work.
Mathis’s whereabouts were unknown, and he failed to return to his residential center that
night. A warrant for Mathis’s arrest was immediately issued, and he turned himself in to
police on March 7, 2013. At a hearing on April 9, 2013, Mathis admitted that he violated
conditions of his employment pass but explained that he did so seeking bus money so that
he could travel to work. Mathis also admitted that he failed to return to his residential
center but explained that he did so to search for his son, who allegedly had gone missing.
The trial court found Mathis to have again violated terms of his community corrections
placement and ordered Mathis placed with the DOC for the remainder of his 545-day
sentence.
DISCUSSION AND DESCISION
Mathis argues that the trial court abused its discretion in placing him with the
DOC for the remainder of his sentence. Placement in a community corrections program
is a “‘matter of grace’” and a decision that is made at the sole discretion of the trial court.
Brantley v. State, 769 N.E.2d 676, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Cox v. State, 706
N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). If a person violates the terms of his community corrections
placement, “the court may ... [r]evoke the placement and commit the person to the
department of correction for the remainder of the person’s sentence.” Ind. Code § 35-38-
2.6-5(3). When reviewing a trial court’s decision to revoke a community corrections
placement, we consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment and neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. If
there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that
3
a defendant has violated any conditions of his placement, we will affirm its decision to
revoke that placement. Id.
Mathis does not dispute that he violated conditions of his employment pass and
that he failed to return to his residential center. Rather, he reiterates that these violations
were necessary under the circumstances. This, however, is an invitation to reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. See id. In placing Mathis with the DOC, the trial court
considered his admissions, excuses, and previous violations. There was no abuse of
discretion.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
4