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: JASON A. CHILDERS Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: GREGORY F. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana STEPHEN R. CREASON Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

FILED
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
PAUL DODSON, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Nov 08 2010, 9:31 am

CLERK

No. 48A05-1002-CR-00123

APPEAL FROM THE MADISON CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Rudolph R. Pyle III, Judge Cause No. 48C01-9802-CF-00044

November 8, 2010 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge

Case Summary Paul Dodson appeals the revocation of his work release. Specifically, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to eight years of his previously suspended twelve-year sentence to be executed at the Indiana Department of Correction. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History In May 2001, Dodson pled guilty to burglary as a Class B felony and theft as a Class D felony. The trial court sentenced Dodson to an aggregate term of twelve years, all suspended to probation. Between the dates of July 25, 2005, and July 13, 2009, Dodson's probation officer filed four separate petitions in Madison Circuit Court alleging that Dodson violated the terms of his probation. The petitions alleged violations as follows: (1) an arrest for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, failure to report to probation, and failure to report a change of address, (2) failure to report to probation and an arrest for contempt of court and driving with a suspended license, (3) convictions for criminal conversion as a Class A misdemeanor, driving with a suspended license as a Class A misdemeanor, and resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor, failure to pay court costs, fees, and restitution, and failure to report to probation, and (4) failure to report as directed and failure to pay probation fees. Appellant's App. p. 70-71, 78-79, 88, 99. An evidentiary hearing was held for each of the four petitions. In each instance, the court found that Dodson violated his probation, and Dodson was sanctioned. Id. at 6-7. At the fourth hearing on September 21, 2009, Dodson was sanctioned to "twelve months Community 2

Corrections--Work Release" with an order that he return to probation upon completion of the work release. Id. at 7. Dodson began his work release at Community Justice Work Release Center ("CJC") on September 22, 2009. Within three months CJC filed a petition to terminate Dodson's work release privileges due to violations of the work release rules and regulations. CJC's petition filed on December 22, 2009, contained three allegations: (1) Dodson received a conduct report for unaccountable time on October 22, 2009, (2) Dodson tested positive for opiates (hydrocodone level of 300) in a urine drug screen on October 29, 2009, and (3) Dodson received a second conduct report for unaccountable time on November 29, 2009. Id. at 59. An evidentiary hearing was scheduled for January 25, 2010. At the evidentiary hearing, Dodson admitted to committing all three of the work release violations listed in CJC's petition. Tr. p. 10-11. The trial court revoked Dodson's work release and

sentenced him to eight years of his previously suspended twelve-year sentence to be executed at the Indiana Department of Correction with no return to probation.1 Dodson now appeals. Discussion and Decision Dodson alleges that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his work release and sentenced him to eight years of his previously suspended twelve-year

A Probation Revocation Discovery and Notice of Violation of Suspended/Executed Sentence were also filed on January 25, 2010. Appellant's App. p. 20, 53, 54. Based on the transcript and the trial court's order, it does not appear that these motions were considered during the evidentiary hearing. We will not address these motions on appeal as the trial court has already ordered that the bulk of Dodson's suspended sentence be executed at the Department of Correction. Moreover, neither party has raised this issue on appeal.

1

3

sentence to be executed at the Indiana Department of Correction. Specifically, Dodson argues that the sanction of eight years is unreasonable given the nature of the violations and his character. Dodson asks us to vacate the trial court's sanction and remand for a new sanctions hearing. For purposes of appellate review, 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. Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We will consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. at 483. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of the community corrections placement, we will affirm its decision to revoke placement. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551). A work release program is included in the statutory definition of "community corrections program." See Ind. Code

Download 11081001nhv.pdf

Indiana Law