Willie J. Holmes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) , 121 N.E.3d 143 ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 25 2019, 8:24 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald R. Shuler Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Barkes, Kolbus, Rife & Shuler, LLP Attorney General of Indiana
Goshen, Indiana Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief,
Criminal Appeals
George P. Sherman
Josiah J. Swinney
Deputy Attorneys General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Willie J. Holmes, January 25, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-1565
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Gretchen S. Lund,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D04-1505-F5-113
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1565 | January 25, 2019 Page 1 of 5
[1] Willie Holmes’s (“Holmes”) probation was revoked in Elkhart Superior Court,
and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his 1095-day sentence in the
Department of Correction (“the DOC”). Holmes appeals and argues that the
trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve his sentence in the
DOC.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2017, Holmes pleaded guilty to being an habitual traffic violator, a Level 5
felony. On March 1, 2017, Holmes was ordered to serve 1095 days in
community corrections at the Ducomb Center. Shortly after he was sentenced,
Holmes violated the terms of his commitment at the Ducomb Center.
Therefore, he was ordered to serve his remaining sentence through Elkhart
County Community Corrections.
[4] On January 8, 2018, Holmes became eligible for work release, which he began
on January 17, 2018. As a condition of work release, Holmes signed a work
release agreement that listed the rules and regulations of the work release
program.
[5] Two days after he began serving his sentence on work release, Holmes violated
a work release rule. He then amassed nine additional violations of the work
release program rules in approximately one month. His violations included
lying to the staff of the work release facility, possessing contraband, refusing to
return to his ward during a lockdown, and refusing to submit to a drug screen.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1565 | January 25, 2019 Page 2 of 5
Holmes admitted to the violations but attempted to excuse his failure to follow
the work release rules.
[6] Elkhart County Community Corrections filed a notice of probation violation
with the trial court on February 26, 2018. A hearing was held on June 5, 2018,
and the trial court found that Holmes had violated the terms of his work release
placement. After making note of Holmes’s history of criminal behavior and his
recent pattern of disruptive and insubordinate behavior toward community
corrections officers, the court revoked Holmes’s community corrections
placement and ordered him to serve 715 days, the balance of his 1095-day
sentence, in the DOC. Holmes now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[7] If a defendant violates the terms of his community corrections placement, the
community corrections director may, among other things, request that the trial
court revoke the placement and commit the defendant to the DOC. Ind. Code §
35-38-2.6-5. See also Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (quoting
Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (explaining that a
“defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a
community corrections program” because “placement in either is a ‘matter of
grace’ and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right’”). Our court treats a
petition to revoke placement in community corrections the same as a petition to
revoke probation, meaning we will not reverse the trial court’s decision unless it
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1565 | January 25, 2019 Page 3 of 5
is clearly against the logic and effects of the facts and circumstances. McCauley
v. State, 22 N.E.3d 743, 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied.
[8] A revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only prove an alleged
violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688,
691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). We will consider all the evidence supporting the
judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the
credibility of the witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value
to support the trial court’s conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of
probation or community corrections placement, we will affirm the court’s
decision to revoke. Id.[9] Holmes concedes that he violated the terms of his community corrections
placement. However, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it
ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC because he
admitted his violations and he did not violate the rules of his work release
program “out of a wanton disregard or disrespect for the rules of his
placement.” Appellant’s Br. at 10. Holmes also argues that “the fact that he
secured a job and maintained it during his placement at the Work Release
center indicates his good faith about his placement and his character, and points
to the incident being minor bumps in the road.” Id. at 10–11.
[10] The trial court gave a thorough and thoughtful statement supporting its decision
to order Holmes to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. The court
considered Holmes’s disciplinary record in the jail, his misconduct and rules
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1565 | January 25, 2019 Page 4 of 5
violations at the Ducomb Center and in the work release program, and his
pattern of insubordinate behavior toward law enforcement and community
corrections officials. Tr. pp. 56–60. The record in this case establishes Holmes’s
inability to comply with community corrections rules for any significant length
of time and his general lack of respect for law enforcement officials. For this
reason, we conclude that the trial court acted within its broad discretion when it
revoked Holmes’s community corrections placement and ordered him to serve
the remainder of his sentence in the DOC.
[11] Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1565 | January 25, 2019 Page 5 of 5