Opinion
24A-CR-738
11-15-2024
Katrina N. Bennett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Yvette M. LaPlante LaPlante Legal Evansville, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Vanderburgh Superior Court The Honorable Robert J. Pigman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D03-1812-F5-008477 82D03-1902-F2-001193
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Yvette M. LaPlante LaPlante Legal Evansville, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Indiana Attorney General Alexandria Sons Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
FELIX, JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] A few months after receiving a modification of her 16-year prison sentence, Katrina Bennett violated the rules of her community corrections placement. She (1) did not report to her case manager that she had obtained a certain prescription, (2) did not report to the community corrections office as requested by her case manager, and (3) visited an unapproved location. As a result, the trial court revoked Bennett's placement in community corrections and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in prison. Bennett now appeals and raises three issues for our review, which we revise and restate as the following single issue: Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Bennett's placement in community corrections.
[¶2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶3] On May 9, 2019, Bennett pled guilty to escape as a Level 5 felony in Cause 82D03-182-F5-8477 (the "Escape Cause") and to two counts of dealing in methamphetamine as Level 2 felonies in Cause 82D03-1902-F2-1193 (the "Dealing Cause"). After a joint sentencing hearing in both causes, the trial court sentenced Bennett to 1 year executed at the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC") in the Escape Cause and 15 years executed at the DOC in the Dealing Cause, to be served consecutively to one another, resulting in a total aggregate sentence of 16 years of incarceration.
[¶4] In March 2023, Bennett petitioned the court to modify her sentence. On July 13, 2023, the trial court granted her petition over the State's objection and suspended her sentence to community corrections to be served on work release effective August 8, 2023. As part of this sentence modification, Bennett was required to
• "report all prescriptions and over-the-counter medications to Case Manager within 24 hours of receiving the prescription or receiving a sample from the doctor," Ex. Vol. I at 5;
• "report to the Vanderburgh County Community Corrections office immediately upon request, whether it be written or verbal," id. at 4; and
• "only travel to locations approved by Program Staff," id. at 6.Bennett was also required to submit to drug screens.
[¶5] In November 2023, the State filed its first petition to revoke Bennett's placement in community corrections after she failed to report for a drug screen. Bennett admitted to the violation, and the trial court ordered her to serve five days in the county jail before returning her to community corrections. Instead of being returned to work release, Bennett was permitted to begin a home detention sentence.
[¶6] On January 31, 2024, the State filed another petition to revoke Bennett's probation, alleging she violated the three rules quoted above. At the evidentiary hearing on this revocation petition, Bennett's case manager, Amy Osborne, testified that Bennett filled a prescription for Pregabalin "without notifying me and within the twenty-four-hour timeframe." Tr. Vol. II at 33. According to Osborne, Bennett has never denied filling that prescription, nor has she denied her failure to report filling that prescription within 24 hours. Regarding Bennett's failure to report to community corrections as directed, Osborne testified that she called Bennett at approximately 12:45 p.m. on January 31, 2024, and asked Bennett to report to the community corrections office. When Bennett "asked if she was in trouble," she and Osborne "discussed the prescription." Id. at 37. At no time during this phone call did Bennett indicate she was unable to report as requested, nor did she indicate any circumstances that might have prohibited her from so reporting. It was only after Osborne followed up via text message that Bennett told Osborne that she needed more than one hour to report, but she did not explain why. Bennett did not report to community corrections until 3:10 p.m. Osborne also testified that Bennett did not ask for permission to stop by a CVS store or her current residence on her way to report to community corrections that day. Nevertheless, Bennett's GPS unit indicated she visited a CVS store before reporting to community corrections.
[¶7] Bennett testified that she did not willfully violate any of the community corrections rules to which she had agreed and that she had not done anything wrong. Bennett provided conflicting testimony about whether she had failed to report receiving and filling a prescription for Pregabalin. Bennett initially denied failing to report any prescriptions as required by the rules and claimed that although she had received a prescription for Pregabalin, she did not fill that prescription because Osborne had told her she could not take it. Bennett later admitted that she had been prescribed a medication that she did not report to Osborne within 24 hours. Thereafter, Bennett testified that she had, in fact, reported all prescriptions to Osborne within 24 hours of receiving those prescriptions, regardless of whether she acquired the medication prescribed. Bennett also stated that although Osborne had told her she could not take Pregabalin, it was filled multiple times after Osborne told her that she could not take it. Confusingly, Bennett testified: "It's been, they've been filled, but I haven't been taking them .... Like I said, I have medication that I don't take still. I pick them all up in abundance. I don't even go pick them up." Tr. Vol. II at 49.
[¶8] Bennett admitted that on January 31, 2024, Osborne asked her to report to the community corrections office within one hour but that she failed to report within that time frame. Bennett testified that she told Osborne on the phone and via text message that she needed more than one hour to get to the community corrections office on January 31, 2024. Further, Bennett alleged she told Osborne on the phone that she needed this extra time to leave the class she was in at the time and go to her residence to get her things. In addition, Bennett admitted that while on her way to the community corrections office on January 31, 2024, she made an unapproved stop at CVS. Bennett stated she did not realize she did not have approval to stop at CVS on January 31, 2024.
[¶9] After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court found that Bennett had violated the terms of her placement in community corrections and revoked that placement, ordering Bennett to serve the remainder of her 16-year aggregate sentence at the DOC. This appeal ensued.
Bennett fails to support with record citations several statements of fact in her Statement of Case and Argument, as required by Indiana Appellate Rules 46(A)(5), 46(A)(6)(a), and 46(A)(8)(a), respectively. We remind Bennett's counsel that the purpose of our appellate rules-especially Appellate Rule 46 governing the content of briefs-"is to aid and expedite review and to relieve the appellate court of the burden of searching the record and briefing the case." Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (emphasis added) (quoting Dridi v. Cole Kline LLC, 172 N.E.3d 361, 364 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021)). Nonetheless, Bennett's noncompliance with Appellate Rule 46 does not substantially impede our review of her claims, so we choose to address the merits thereof. See Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015).
Discussion and Decision
The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion by Revoking Bennett's Placement in Community Corrections
[¶10] Bennett challenges the trial court's revocation of her community corrections placement. "A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program. Rather, placement in either is a 'matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.'" Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995)); see also Gray v. State, 234 N.E.3d 920, 924 (Ind.Ct.App. 2024) (quoting Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010)), trans. not sought. Thus, "[p]lacement in community corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court." Sullivan v. State, 56 N.E.3d 1157, 1160 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016) (citing Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014), trans. denied); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-3(a).
[¶11] If a defendant violates the terms of her community corrections placement, the trial court may, among other things, revoke the defendant's placement and commit her to the county jail or the DOC for the remainder of her sentence. I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5. The standard of review for revocation of a community corrections placement is the same standard as for revocation of probation. Bennett v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019) (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549). We review a trial court's decision that a violation of a defendant's community correction placement occurred for an abuse of discretion. Id. (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 185 (Ind. 2007)). An abuse of discretion occurs "when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Id. (citing Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d at 185).
[¶12] Bennett specifically claims the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that she violated the rules of her community corrections placement. For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a community corrections placement the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549. Such hearings are civil in nature, and the State must prove an alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. See Murdock v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1265, 1267 (Ind. 2014) (citing Braxton v. State, 651 N.E.2d 268, 270 (Ind. 1995)). When faced with a challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence at a revocation hearing, "we consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment- without regard to weight or credibility-and will affirm if 'there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a probationer has violated any condition of probation.'" Id. (quoting Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270).
[¶13] Regarding whether Bennett violated the provision that she was supposed to advise community corrections of all her prescriptions within 24 hours of receiving them, there was conflicting testimony between Osborne and Bennett. Osborne's testimony was clear and direct. Osborne testified that she had conversations with Bennett regarding the need to advise her of all prescriptions. In fact, both Osborne and Bennett testified that Bennett had told Osborne about several of her prescriptions and that they had filled out appropriate prescription medication forms. According to Osborne, they never filled out a form for Pregabalin, and Bennett never advised her of having a prescription for it. In contrast to Osborne's testimony, Bennett's testimony was confusing and internally inconsistent. Bennett claimed she told Osborne about the Pregabalin prescription and Osborne told her not to take the pills. However, Bennett filled the prescription several times after allegedly being told not to take the medication. The trial court had to determine Osborne's and Bennett's credibility and untangle the confusing and conflicting testimony. Because we neither reassess witness credibility nor reweigh the evidence, see Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267 (quoting Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270), we cannot say the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support by a preponderance of the evidence that Bennett violated the rules of her community corrections placement by failing to timely report her Pregabalin prescription.
[¶14] Even if we assume that Bennett did not violate the medication provision of the rules of her placement in community corrections, she admitted to the other two violations alleged by the State. First, Bennett admitted that on January 31, 2024, she did not report to the community corrections office within one hour as requested by Osborne. This was a violation of the rules of her placement in community corrections. Nonetheless, as she did at the evidentiary hearing, Bennett claims on appeal she could not be at the community corrections office within one hour from the time Osborne told her to come in. Even if that is true, that is a problem of Bennett's own making; she knew that she could be requested to return to community corrections at any time. We cannot condone the excuse that one was unable to do an act which they had previously agreed to do. Bennett chose to place herself in a position where she could not abide by that restriction. In making this choice, it was her burden to seek permission. Bennett claims she did; Osborne claims she did not. That conflict was for the trial court to decide. Ultimately, Bennett's argument is a request for us to reweigh the evidence and reassess witness credibility, which we cannot do. See Murdock, 10 N.E.3d at 1267 (quoting Braxton, 651 N.E.2d at 270). Second, Bennett admitted that on January 31, 2024, she visited a CVS store that she did not have permission from Osborne to visit. This, too, was a violation of the rules of her placement in community corrections.
[¶15] Bennett also argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her placement in community corrections. A single violation of the terms of community corrections is enough for a trial court to revoke placement thereon. See Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 618 (Ind. 2013) ("probation may be revoked on evidence of a single violation"); Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549. Here, Bennett has violated her placement rules numerous times and in numerous ways. The trial court had previously shown her leniency by continuing her placement in community corrections. It was within the trial court's discretion to choose not to show such leniency this time around. Based on Bennett's convictions and community corrections violations, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her placement. We therefore affirm the trial court on all issues raised.
To the extent Bennett attempts to challenge the trial court's decision to execute the balance of her sentence, she fails to provide cogent reasoning and citations to support such an argument. See App. R. 46(A)(8)(a) ("The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on ....") Therefore, Bennett has waived any such challenge for our review. See Pierce, 29 N.E.3d at 1267.
[¶16] Affirmed.
Pyle, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.