Gregory C. Snodgrass v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jul 30 2019, 9:54 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana Brooklyn, Indiana Evan Matthew Comer Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Gregory C. Snodgrass, July 30, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-559 v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable John T. Roach, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 84D01-1803-F2-927

Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 5

Case Summary [1] Gregory Snodgrass (“Snodgrass”) pled guilty to Dealing in Methamphetamine,

as a Level 2 felony,1 and received a sentence of eighteen years, with nine to be

served on home detention and nine on formal probation. Snodgrass appeals the

decision to revoke his home detention placement and commit him to the

Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”). He raises a single issue:

whether the commitment to the DOC, as opposed to an inpatient rehabilitation

facility, is an abuse of discretion. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On September 12, 2018, Snodgrass was placed on home detention. Among the

conditions of his placement were that he must refrain from illegal drug use and

submit to drug screens administered through Vigo County Community

Corrections. On September 27, 2018, Snodgrass tested positive for

methamphetamine. He was sanctioned with a twenty-four hour lockdown. On

October 1 and October 30, 2018, Snodgrass again tested positive for

methamphetamine. He was sanctioned with forty-two hour and seventy-two

hour lockdowns, respectively. On November 29, 2018, December 6, 2018, and

December 10, 2018, Snodgrass again tested positive for methamphetamine.

1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 5 [3] On December 18, 2018, the State filed a petition to revoke Snodgrass’s

placement. On January 9, 2019, the trial court conducted a placement

revocation hearing and found Snodgrass had violated the terms of his direct

placement. At a dispositional hearing on February 7, 2019, the trial court

revoked Snodgrass’s placement and ordered him to serve nine years in the

DOC. Snodgrass now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] Snodgrass contends that the trial court erred in revoking his home detention

placement and ordering him to serve nine years of his sentence in the DOC.

Specifically, Snodgrass argues that the court did not consider alternatives and

should have placed him in a facility to treat his admitted addiction to

methamphetamine. [5] Community corrections is a “program consisting of residential and work

release, electronic monitoring, day treatment, or day reporting.” Ind. Code §

35-38-2.6-2. The standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a

community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. Cox

v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999). The State need only have proven the

alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We consider all the

evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing the evidence or

judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of

probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that a defendant has

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 5

violated any term of community corrections, we will affirm the trial court’s

decision to revoke placement. Id. [6] At the revocation hearing, case manager Jennifer Wallace testified that

Snodgrass was administered drug screens as a condition of his home detention

placement and he had failed multiple screens. Corresponding drug screen

reports disclosed that Snodgrass tested positive for methamphetamine on six

occasions. Snodgrass testified that he was addicted to methamphetamine. As

such, he does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that he

violated a term of his home detention placement. Rather, he asserts that the

trial court failed to consider “numerous local options available for Snodgrass to

receive inpatient treatment and still remain in his direct placement.”

Appellant’s Brief at 8. [7] In McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), the appellant’s

direct commitment to community corrections was revoked after he tested

positive for drugs and violated rules of his work release center. We considered

his argument “that the court should have placed him back in the Work Release

Center or considered an alternative placement” and clarified that a defendant is

not entitled to choose where a sentence will be served:

Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the DOC, and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court. … 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.”

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 5

Id. at 1242 (internal citation omitted). [8] Likewise, Snodgrass violated the terms of his placement, his placement was

revoked, and he had no entitlement to a future placement of his choice. In the

order committing Snodgrass to the DOC, the trial court observed that

Snodgrass “is not eligible for Vigo County Community Corrections,”

recommended completion of a Purposeful Incarceration program, and included

the language:

Upon successful completion of the clinically appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by IDOC, the court will consider a modification.

Appealed Order at 1. Snodgrass had previously been afforded sentencing

leniency and substance abuse treatment programs yet he continued to use

methamphetamine. He has no entitlement to inpatient treatment or the

continuance of his home detention placement.

Conclusion [9] Finding no error, we affirm the order revoking Snodgrass’s direct placement

and ordering him to serve nine years of his sentence in the DOC. [10] Affirmed.

Najam, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-559 | July 30, 2019 Page 5 of 5