Bryan K. Peters v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 09 2020, 8:49 am regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE R. Patrick Magrath Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Alcorn Sage Schwartz & Magrath, LLP Attorney General of Indiana Madison, Indiana Courtney L. Staton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bryan K. Peters, April 9, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2017 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan N. Appellee-Plaintiff. Cleary, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D01-1511-F6-369

Mathias, Judge. [1] Bryan K. Peters (“Peters”) challenges the order of the Dearborn Superior Court

revoking his placement in community corrections and ordering him to serve the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 1 of 6

remainder of his sentence in the Dearborn County Jail. On appeal, Peters

claims that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his placement. [2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On October 27, 2015, Peters was arrested for operating a vehicle with a

suspended license. This was not Peters’s first traffic offense, and, on November

12, the State charged Peters with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as an

habitual traffic violator. Peters entered into a plea agreement with the State on

April 26, 2016, in which he agreed to plead guilty as charged in exchange for a

two-and-one-half-year sentence, suspended to probation. The trial court

accepted the agreement and sentenced Peters accordingly. One of the

conditions of Peters’s probation was to abstain from the use of illicit drugs. [4] On March 26, 2019, Peters submitted to a random drug screen and tested

positive for methamphetamine use. The State then filed a notice of probation

violation. At the revocation hearing held on May 15, 2019, Peters admitted to

using methamphetamine. The trial court revoked Peters’s probation and

ordered that the remaining days of his sentence be executed in community

corrections on home detention. One of the terms of his placement in

community corrections was to abstain from the use of illicit drugs. [5] On June 21, 2019, Peters contacted his home detention case manager and asked

to meet. When they met, Peters informed her that he had been using

methamphetamine. Peters then submitted to a drug screen and again tested Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 2 of 6

positive for methamphetamine. Accordingly, on July 3, 2019, the State filed a

notice of violation of the terms of Peters’s placement, and the trial court held an

evidentiary hearing on this notice on August 1, 2019. [6] At the evidentiary hearing, Peters admitted to using methamphetamine and

admitted that he had been struggling with substance abuse issues since 2015.

The trial court solicited input from the community corrections director, who

stated that he did not believe that Peters would benefit from being returned to

home detention and that he instead believed the best option was to order Peters

to undergo substance abuse treatment in jail. Tr. p. 6. The trial court then

revoked Peters’s placement in community corrections and ordered him to serve

the remaining portion of his sentence at the county jail. Peters now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [7] Our standard of review for a trial court’s revocation of placement in community

corrections is well settled:

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. The similarities between the two dictate this approach. 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.

While a community corrections placement revocation hearing has certain due process requirements, it is not to be equated with Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 3 of 6

an adversarial criminal proceeding. Rather, it is a narrow inquiry, and its procedures are to be more flexible. This is necessary to permit the court to exercise its inherent power to enforce obedience to its lawful orders. . . .

Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. We will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation.

Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoted in Holmes v.

State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482–83 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)) (internal citations and

quotations removed). [8] Peters does not deny that he violated the terms of his placement, but he claims

that his violation was merely “technical,” because he was not arrested for a new

crime or convicted of a new offense. We disagree. Simply because Peters was

not caught with methamphetamine in his possession and criminally charged for

this possession does not lessen the seriousness of his violation; he possessed and

used a dangerous and illicit drug contrary to the criminal laws of this state and

in violation of the terms of his placement. This was not a mere technical

violation.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 4 of 6 [9] Peters also notes that he was gainfully employed and that his girlfriend had

recently given birth to their child. The child tested positive for

methamphetamine at birth and was removed from its mother. Peters therefore

asked the trial court to continue his placement in home detention so he could

work with the Department of Child Services to be reunited with his child. Also,

Peters’s elder son was terminally ill, and Peters asked to remain on home

detention so he could attend to his son. Peters argues that these circumstances

put serious psychological stress on him, thereby triggering his relapse into

methamphetamine use. These facts, however, are not favorable to the trial

court’s judgment. [10] The facts favorable to the trial court’s judgment show that Peters has an

extensive criminal history in four states. Fifty-three-year-old Peters has

accumulated over thirty criminal convictions. Many of his prior convictions

involve the possession of controlled substances and offenses related to alcohol;

others involve the possession of weapons and theft. He has been convicted of

driving while suspended or driving with a revoked license twelve times. Despite

this criminal history, the trial court twice showed lenience to Peters: first when

he accepted the guilty plea calling for an entirely suspended sentence, then

again when Peters violated the terms of his probation. The trial court placed

Peters in community corrections, and instead of taking advantage of this grace,

Peters continued to use methamphetamine. [11] Additionally, the trial court did not ignore Peters’s substance abuse problem.

The trial court determined that Peters would not benefit from continued

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 5 of 6

placement in community corrections and would instead be better served by

participation in a drug treatment program in jail.

Conclusion [12] Under these facts and circumstances, we are unable to agree with Peters that the

trial court abused its discretion when it revoked Peters’s placement in

community corrections and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in

jail. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. [13] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Bailey, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2017 | April 9, 2020 Page 6 of 6