Preview:

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 establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ANGELA WARNER SIMS Hulse, Lacey, Hardacre, Austin, & Sims, P.C. Anderson, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana AARON J. SPOLARICH Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
Apr 24 2012, 9:21 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
HAROLD W. REYNOLDS, Appellant- Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee- Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CLERK

No. 48A04-1109-CR-468

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable David A. Happe, Judge Cause No. 48D04-1004-FD-139

April 24, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ROBB, Chief Judge

Case Summary and Issue Harold Reynolds was sentenced to thirty-six months in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"), suspended but for twenty-four months to be served on work release, for a conviction of invasion of privacy, a Class D felony. Upon petition by the State alleging Reynolds had violated the rules and regulations of work release, his work release was terminated and he was ordered to serve the balance of the twenty-four months in DOC, with the remaining twelve months of his sentence suspended to probation. Reynolds appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the entire twenty-four months. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History In April 2010, due to an incident with a former girlfriend who had a protective order against Reynolds, he was charged with invasion of privacy as a Class A misdemeanor and invasion of privacy enhanced to a Class D felony because of a prior conviction. In June 2010, Reynolds entered a plea of guilty to the Class D felony charge. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the Class A misdemeanor charge was dismissed and Reynolds was sentenced to thirty-six months, "stayed pending [Reynolds's] successful graduation from the Madison County Mental Health Court Program," in which case the judgment and sentence were to be vacated and the case dismissed. Appellant's Appendix at 69. In August 2010, the trial court received a status report from the Mental Health Court indicating that Reynolds's "participation in Mental Health Court is rejected due to his criminal history and the local treatment providers not being able to provide services to . . . him." Id. at 66.
2

In October 2010, at a hearing regarding the previously-stayed sentence, the conviction and sentence previously entered were vacated and the parties submitted a new plea agreement pursuant to which Reynolds again entered a plea of guilty to the Class D felony charge of invasion of privacy, the Class A misdemeanor charge was dismissed, and he was sentenced to thirty-six months. Twenty-four months of the sentence were to be served through the Madison County Work Release Facility and the remainder was suspended to probation. In July 2011, the State filed a petition to terminate work release, alleging sixteen violations of work release rules and regulations, spanning from March 2011 to July 2011. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found Reynolds had committed the following violations: a) On 3/6/2011 [Reynolds] received a conduct report for unknown whereabouts and lying to an officer. . . . *** d) On 6/13/2011 [Reynolds] received a conduct report for contraband (cell phone). . . . *** i) On 6/30/2011 [Reynolds] received a conduct report for turning in an improper work verification. . . . *** l) On 7/9/2011 [Reynolds] received a conduct report for failure to turn in a paycheck stub. . . . m) On 7/13/2011 [Reynolds] received a conduct report for failure to turn in a paycheck stub. . . . *** p) [Reynolds] is in arrears on his Work Release fees. The amount of the arrearage is $189.74. . . . Id. at 31 (quoting from petition to terminate work release privilege); see also id. at 11 (trial court order finding violations). The trial court imposed the following sanction: the balance of [Reynolds's] work release privilege is terminated (730 days) and ordered executed in the Department of Correction. [Reynolds] is given
3

credit and goodtime credit of 224 days, leaving a balance to serve of 506 days. Upon completion, [Reynolds] to return to complete the 12-month suspended sentenc[e] to probation. Id. at 11. Reynolds now appeals the sanction. Discussion and Decision Work release is a form of community corrections, which, like probation, serves as an alternative to placement in the Department of Correction. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); see Ind. Code

Download Harold W. Reynolds v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law