Michael Morrisey v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Oct 07 2013, 6:08 am
Oct 07 2013, 6:08 am
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:
KEVIN WILD GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
ANDREW FALK
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MICHAEL MORRISEY, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-1304-CR-146
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, Judge
Cause No. 49G04-1201-FC-4618
October 7, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
GARRARD, Senior Judge
Michael Morrisey challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial
court’s revocation of his community corrections placement. We affirm.
Morrisey pleaded guilty to Class C felony criminal confinement, Class D felony
strangulation, and Class D felony battery. The trial court accepted the plea, entered
judgments of conviction, and sentenced him to an aggregate term of four years. Two
years were ordered to be served in the Department of Correction followed by two years in
community corrections. The court also ordered him to complete twenty-six weeks of
domestic violence counseling.
Morrisey began his community corrections placement at Duvall Residential Center
in October 2012. In January 2013, the State filed a notice of community corrections
violation, which alleged that Morrisey: (1) failed to comply with a court-ordered
substance abuse treatment program; (2) failed to enroll in court-ordered domestic
violence counseling; and (3) violated Duvall Residential Center rules. The first and third
violations alleged that Morrisey was in possession and under the influence of synthetic
drugs. Regarding the failure to enroll in court-ordered domestic violence counseling, the
notice stated, “In an office visit with Community Supervision Manager Jaime Sherls on
11/30/[2]012, the defendant was informed that he would have to be enrolled in Domestic
Violence classes by 12/28/2012. As of 1/25/2013, the defendant has failed to enroll in
court ordered Domestic Violence Counseling.” Appellant’s App. p. 59.
The trial court held a hearing, at the start of which it noted that the first and third
allegations needed to be resolved. As to the second, it stated, “The Defendant has
admitted that he failed to enroll in court-ordered Domestic Violence Counseling
2
according to my notes, okay.” Tr. p. 3. Morrisey, by counsel, responded, “That’s what I
have in mine too, Judge.” Id. Morrisey asked the State what it was recommending as a
sanction, and when he learned the State wanted him to serve the remainder of his
sentence at the Department of Correction, he decided to continue to a contested hearing.
Id. at 7, 10.
The State presented evidence on each of the allegations. William Beck, a
community corrections employee, testified about Morrisey’s failure to enroll in court-
ordered domestic violence counseling. Beck stated that despite being advised in an office
visit that he needed to get into domestic violence counseling, Morrisey had not done so
by January 25, 2013.
Morrisey testified in his own defense, addressing only the synthetic drug
allegations. Neither the State’s nor Morrisey’s closing arguments addressed the
substance of the domestic violence counseling allegation. In fact, Morrisey explicitly
stated, “[W]hatever you’re going to do, Judge, you’re going to do because my client
already admitted that he did not enroll in Domestic Violence Counseling. He admitted it
to this Court. The only thing we’re contesting is whether or not he was trafficking, the
specific allegation, in some sort of illegal possession of synthetic marijuana or some
illegal substance . . . .” Id. at 34-35.
The trial court found that the evidence regarding the synthetic drugs did not rise to
the necessary level of proof. However, it noted Morrisey’s admission to the domestic
violence counseling allegation and further found that Morrisey’s own testimony proved
he had violated other Duvall Residential Center rules: he was off his bunk during count,
3
had cigarettes in his possession, and failed to stay in a location as ordered by a Duvall
employee. The court thus determined that Morrisey had violated the conditions of his
community corrections placement, revoked that placement, and ordered him to serve the
balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction.
The sole issue Morrisey presents for our review is whether the evidence is
sufficient to support the revocation of his community corrections placement. We review
the revocation of a community corrections placement in the same manner as a revocation
of probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999). That is, a community
corrections revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only prove the alleged
violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We consider the evidence most
favorable to the trial court’s judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the
credibility of the witnesses. Id. We affirm the revocation if there is substantial evidence
of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant has violated
any terms of the community corrections placement. Id.
In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Morrisey claims that the only
evidence regarding the domestic violence counseling allegation was inadmissible
hearsay. He also argues that the Duvall rules violations found by the court were not
included in the notice of community corrections violation and, in any event, were not
supported by sufficient evidence or were too minor to justify revocation. We decline to
address these claims because statements made by both Morrisey and the trial court during
the hearing indicate that Morrisey admitted he failed to enroll in court-ordered domestic
violence counseling.
4
Morrisey now argues that he did not admit the domestic violence counseling
allegation to the court. However, his unequivocal statements at the hearing that he had so
admitted bars any challenge to the violation here. See Baugh v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1277,
1280 (Ind. 2010) (“Under the invited error doctrine, a party may not take advantage of an
error that she commits, invites, or which is the natural consequence of her own neglect or
misconduct.” (internal quotation omitted)).
Violation of a single condition of a community corrections placement is sufficient
to revoke that placement. See Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011),
trans. denied. Morrisey’s admitted failure to enroll in court-ordered domestic violence
counseling is thus sufficient to sustain the revocation of his community corrections
placement.
Affirmed.
MAY, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
5