Opinion
24A-CR-310
09-16-2024
Michael A. Turman, Jr., Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin Matthew D. Anglemeyer Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana, Kathy J. Bradley 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Marion Superior Court The Honorable Matthew E. Symons, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49D29-2112-F5-36645
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Talisha R. Griffin Matthew D. Anglemeyer Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana, Kathy J. Bradley Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
ROBB, SENIOR JUDGE
Statement of the Case
[¶1] Michael A. Turman, Jr., appeals the sanction imposed by the trial court after Turman admitted he had violated the conditions of his placement in community corrections and the conditions of his probation. Concluding the trial court did not err in sending Turman to the Department of Correction ("DOC"), we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In 2021, the State charged Turman with Level 5 felony possession of cocaine; Level 5 felony possession of a handgun with a prior felony conviction; Level 6 felony possession of a controlled substance; Level 6 felony criminal recklessness; Class A misdemeanor driving with a suspended license with a prior conviction; and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. The parties negotiated a plea agreement. Turman pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, and the State dismissed the remaining charges, as well as another pending case against Turman. The parties also agreed Turman would be sentenced to three years, with two years served on home detention through community corrections, and one year on probation.
[¶3] The trial court accepted the parties' plea agreement and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Among other conditions of his community corrections placement, the court ordered Turman to be confined at home, except under certain limited circumstances, and to refrain from committing a new criminal offense. Similarly, Turman's conditions of probation included a prohibition on committing a new criminal offense.
[¶4] In November 2022, the State filed a notice of community corrections violation. The State alleged Turman cut off his electronic monitoring device and failed to report to the community corrections office. The trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. In June 2023, the State filed a notice of probation violation. The State alleged Turman was supposed to begin his term of probation, but he had continued to be out of contact with authorities after cutting off the monitoring device. An officer later arrested Turman.
[¶5] During a hearing in September 2023, Turman admitted to violating the terms of his community corrections and probation placements. The trial court kept him at community corrections and on probation on a "last chance basis." Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 104.
[¶6] In November 2023, the State filed another notice of community corrections violation, followed by a notice of probation violation. The State alleged Turman: (1) went to unauthorized locations during an approved pass, including a liquor store; and (2) was charged with new criminal offenses, including Class A misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in a manner endangering a person.
[¶7] The trial court held a hearing, during which Turman admitted to committing the violations alleged by the State. Turman also argued he had been admitted to an in-patient treatment program for substance abuse and asked the court to return him to home detention for treatment. The court rejected his request, revoked his placements, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. This appeal followed.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] Turman argues the trial court should have allowed him to go to a drug treatment program. We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016). Both probation and community corrections are alternatives to commitment to the DOC, and placement in either program "is a matter of grace and not a right." Id.
[¶9] If a court determines a person has violated a condition of home detention or probation, the trial court may: (1) continue the person's placement, with or without modifying the conditions; (2) extend the terms of the placement; or (3) order execution of all or part of the suspended sentence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) & (i) (2015). We review the trial court's decision to revoke placement in community corrections or on probation for an abuse of discretion. See Puckett v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) (standard of review for revocation of community corrections), trans. denied; Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 263 (Ind.Ct.App. 2019) (standard of review of sanction for probation violation), trans. denied. "An abuse of discretion occurs when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Overstreet, 136 N.E.3d at 263.
[¶10] The trial court imposed a sentence in this case after Turman pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony possession of cocaine. Turman concedes that he has a lengthy criminal history, with several prior stints of probation that ended unsuccessfully. See Appellant's Br. pp. 11-13 (listing convictions and probation violations).
[¶11] Turman violated the conditions of his home detention placement by cutting off his ankle monitor and by failing to contact his home detention supervisor. He then compounded the violation by not contacting probation officials. By the State's calculations, Turman remained out of contact for 267 days, depriving officials of the ability to monitor him as he remained in the community. Next, after the trial court returned Turman to community corrections and probation as a last chance, Turman violated the conditions of his placements by committing new crimes, one of the most serious violations.
[¶12] Turman argues that his history of misconduct is largely based on substance abuse and that he is ready for treatment. He also points to evidence that an inpatient treatment center has agreed to admit him. But the trial court correctly noted Turman has repeatedly violated the conditions of his placements, even on a last chance basis, and he has also failed to successfully complete probation in the past. The court's choice of incarceration as a sanction is not against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. See Overstreet, 136 N.E.3d at 264 (no abuse of discretion in ordering Overstreet to serve balance of suspended sentence at DOC; Overstreet argued for admission to program, but he had lengthy criminal history and had repeatedly violated conditions of probation). Rejecting Turman's proposal of in-patient treatment was well within the court's discretion.
Conclusion
[¶13] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[¶14] Affirmed.
Vaidik, J., and Bradford, J., concur.