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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DAVID A. HAPPE STEVE CARTER
Lockwood Williams & Happe   Attorney General of Indiana
Anderson, Indiana
ANGELA N. SANCHEZ
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
  


IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA



JOHN WRIGHT, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A04-0806-CR-338
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )



APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Tanya Walton-Pratt, Judge
Cause No. 49G01-0612-FD-248156




December 16, 2008


MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION


BRADFORD, Judge  


Appellant-Defendant John Wright appeals the revocation of his community corrections placement following a subsequent arrest, contending that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he violated the terms of his community corrections placement.  We affirm.   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY  On December 25, 2006, Wright was charged with Class D felony operating a motor vehicle while a habitual traffic violator.  On July 3, 2007, Wright pled guilty as charged pursuant to a written plea agreement and was sentenced to 365 days to be served in community corrections.     At approximately 11:30 p.m. on February 23, 2008, Wright, who at the time was serving his executed sentence in community corrections, was pulled over by Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Eric Amos because the vehicle which Wright was driving did not have its lights on and had no visible license plate.  A license check revealed that Wright.s license had been suspended for life on August 14, 2007.  Wright was subsequently arrested and was charged with operating a vehicle after a lifetime suspension.   A notice of violation of community corrections rules was filed on March 3, 2008, alleging that Wright was arrested for operating a vehicle after receiving a lifetime suspension on February 24, 2008.  On April 30, 2008, Wright pled guilty to operating a vehicle after receiving a lifetime suspension and admitted through his attorney that he had violated the terms of his community corrections placement.  With respect to the community corrections violation, the trial court sentenced Wright to time served.  Wright now appeals.  
DISCUSSION AND DECISION   Wright contends that the trial court erred in revoking his community corrections placement, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Wright violated the terms of his placement.  Specifically, Wright claims that although his attorney indicated his intent to admit that he violated his community corrections placement by being arrested, no such admission was subsequently made by Wright.  Additionally, Wright claims that while he did admit to committing the crime of operating after receiving a lifetime suspension on February 23, 2008, his admission does not support the allegation that he was arrested for committing that offense on the following day.  Initially, we note that like probation programs, community corrections programs serve the humane purpose of avoiding incarceration by providing an alternative to commitment to the Department of Correction, and also that placement in community corrections is ordered at the sole discretion of the trial court.  McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).  

Download 12160807cjb.pdf

Indiana Law