Noah Mani v. State of Indiana

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before Jun 27 2013, 7:27 am
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
GARY R. ROM
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
NOAH MANI, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A05-1211-CR-569
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Patricia J. Gifford, Senior Judge
Cause No. 49G02-1003-FB-17387
June 27, 2013
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
SULLIVAN, Senior Judge
Noah Mani challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s
revocation of his community corrections placement. We affirm.
In June 2010, Mani pleaded guilty to Class B felony burglary and was sentenced
to four years in the Department of Correction followed by two years in community
corrections work release. Mani began his community corrections placement at Duvall
Residential Center in March 2012. At that time, he signed a contract informing him of
Duvall’s rules and regulations.
In October 2012, the State filed a notice of community corrections violation,
which alleged that Mani assaulted a Duvall staff member, habitually violated Duvall
rules, and failed to comply with his financial obligation to community corrections.
At a hearing, Alison Shine of Marion County Community Corrections testified
that she was not present when the assault occurred but reviewed Mani’s file and watched
the surveillance video of the incident. She stated that a Duvall employee searched
Mani’s personal belongings, found bleach and hair clippers, and removed them. Shine
further stated that Mani followed the employee, removed the items from the employee’s
cart, argued with the employee, and then struck out at him. The employee restrained
him. The trial court admitted the surveillance video into evidence.
Shine also testified that Duvall considers a person with five conduct reports to be
a habitual rule violator, and Mani had accumulated seven conduct reports by the time the
notice of violation was filed. She further testified that Mani was over $2800 in arrears
upon his obligation to pay work release fees.
2
Mani testified that he pushed the Duvall employee away because the employee
tried to choke him. As to the conduct reports, the court reviewed each rule violation
with Mani, and Mani acknowledged some and contested others. He explained that three
of the rule violations—one for violation of a condition of a pass and two for violation of
temporary leave conditions—occurred when he had passes to go out for job interviews
but got lost. He further explained that two of the rule violations occurred because he
was unaware of the rules. Mani admitted he owed over $2800 in work release fees.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that Mani assaulted the Duvall
employee, habitually violated Duvall rules, and failed to comply with his community
corrections financial obligation. The court thus concluded that he violated the
conditions of his community corrections placement, revoked that placement, ordered
him to serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction, and entered a
civil judgment against him for the unpaid fees.
The sole issue Mani presents in this appeal 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
3
evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant has
violated any terms of the community corrections placement. Id.Mani contends the evidence is insufficient to show he assaulted the Duvall
employee. He claims, as he did at the revocation hearing, that he pushed the employee
away only after the employee tried to choke him. He also says the surveillance video
“appears” to support his version of events. Appellant’s Br. p. 6. The video, which we
have reviewed, was recorded from a vantage point down the hallway from where the
physical altercation occurred. It is unclear how the altercation began, but what is clear is
that Mani forcefully shoved the employee against the wall.
Moreover, he essentially makes a self-defense claim but provides no cogent
analysis of whether he acted without fault, was in a place where he had a right to be, or
was in reasonable fear or apprehension of bodily harm. See Henson v. State, 786 N.E.2d
274, 277 (Ind. 2003). In any event, because Mani removed the confiscated items from
the cart, refused to return them, and argued with the employee, a reasonable person could
conclude that he was not without fault and that the State’s evidence thus negated his self-
defense claim. See id. at 278 (inmate’s actions not without fault where he provoked
confrontation, in which he threw body waste at correctional officers, by threatening them
after they removed items from his cell). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to the trial court’s judgment, is sufficient to show that Mani assaulted the employee.
Mani also contends the evidence is insufficient to show the other two violations
found by the court. However, 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,
4
149 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. Thus, even if the evidence is insufficient to show
Mani habitually violated Duvall rules or failed to comply with his community corrections
financial obligation, his assault of the employee is sufficient to sustain the revocation of
his community corrections placement.
We therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.
BAILEY, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
5