Damon L. Rice v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2020 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 01 2020, 8:51 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Brandon E. Murphy J.T. Whitehead
Cannon Bruns & Murphy LLC Deputy Attorney General
Muncie, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Damon L. Rice, June 1, 2020
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-2748
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas A.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Cannon, Jr., Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
18C05-1708-F5-115
Shepard, Senior Judge.
[1] Damon Rice appeals the trial court’s revocation of his home detention
placement and imposition of his entire previously suspended sentence. We
affirm.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2748 | June 1, 2020 Page 1 of 5
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In August 2017, the State charged Rice with aiding, inducing, or causing
1
dealing in methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony. In a plea agreement that
resolved both this charge and charges in four other causes, Rice pleaded to the
Level 5 felony. On July 9, 2019, the court sentenced him to three years,
suspended to a direct commitment to electronic home detention, and ordered
him to arrange for monitoring within thirty days and to report daily to
community corrections in the meantime.
[3] Shortly thereafter on August 22, the State petitioned to revoke Rice’s home
detention placement for his alleged failure to comply with its terms. After a
hearing, the court revoked Rice’s placement and imposed his entire previously
suspended sentence.
Issues
[4] Rice presents two issues on appeal:
I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support
the revocation of Rice’s placement in home detention; and
II. Whether the court abused its discretion by imposing the
entirety of Rice’s suspended sentence.
1
Ind. Code §§ 35-41-2-4 (1977), 35-48-4-1.1 (2017).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2748 | June 1, 2020 Page 2 of 5
Discussion and Decision
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[5] Rice challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation of his
placement, contending that the State’s evidence showed mere technical
violations. We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a
community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to
revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind. 1999). The State need
prove an alleged violation only by a preponderance, and we will consider the
evidence supporting the judgment without reweighing it or judging the
credibility of the witnesses. Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App.
2009). If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the
judgment, we will affirm the court’s decision to revoke. Id.
[6] The State alleged that Rice violated his home detention by (1) failing to report
daily, (2) failing to be placed on home detention, and (3) being charged with
new offenses. At the fact-finding hearing, the supervisor of home detention
testified in support of the State’s allegations. Rice, himself, admitted that he
had not reported daily while awaiting placement, was never placed on home
detention, and was charged with three new offenses. The court determined that
Rice had violated the terms of his home detention as set forth in the first two of
the State’s three allegations, making no reference to the third.
[7] Contrary to Rice’s assertions, his failure to perform over and over again the
very things the court required him to do to keep himself out of prison is not a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2748 | June 1, 2020 Page 3 of 5
technical violation. Cf. Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (in
attempting to comply with rules of his probation, probationer committed minor,
technical violations by leaving confines of apartment but not leaving apartment
building and leaving several hours early for authorized errand). The State’s
evidence of Rice’s violations was sufficient to support the court’s revocation.
II. Sentence
[8] Next, Rice asserts the court abused its discretion when, in revoking his home
detention, it ordered him to serve the entirety of his suspended three-year
sentence.
[9] Like probation, Rice’s home detention placement, is a matter of grace, not a
right to which he is entitled. See Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App.
2005), trans. denied. Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering home
detention, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to
proceed. See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007). Accordingly, a trial
court’s sentencing decisions for home detention violations are reviewed for
abuse of discretion. See Wilkerson v. State, 918 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and
effect of the facts and circumstances. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d 184.
[10] The court extended considerable leniency to Rice by allowing him to be placed
on home detention in the first place. The plea agreement that resolved this
charge also resolved four other causes that involved felony identity deception
and possession of methamphetamine, and misdemeanor possession of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2748 | June 1, 2020 Page 4 of 5
marijuana and possession of paraphernalia; misdemeanor possession of
paraphernalia and resisting law enforcement, and felony possession of meth;
felony resisting and possession of meth, and misdemeanor reckless driving; and
felony criminal recklessness and pointing a firearm. In two of these causes,
Rice had violated terms of his pretrial home detention and committed new
offenses while out on bond.
[11] When sentencing Rice to the balance of his previously suspended sentence, the
court stated, “your actions don’t give me reason to [ ] believe or be convinced
that you are ever going to follow any rules that [ ] don’t suit your own agenda.”
Tr. Vol II, p. 26. Indeed, Rice has demonstrated his need for a more stringent
penalty by his unwillingness to accept limits on his behavior in lieu of
imprisonment. We cannot say the court’s decision that Rice serve his entire
previously suspended sentence is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances of this case.
Conclusion
[12] We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to support the revocation
of Rice’s placement in home detention, and the court did not abuse its
discretion by imposing the entirety of Rice’s suspended sentence.
[13] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2748 | June 1, 2020 Page 5 of 5