John A. Trigg v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Oct 13 2020, 8:23 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Mark A. Thoma Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill Attorney General of Indiana Fort Wayne, Indiana Myriam Serrano Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John A. Trigg, October 13, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1078 v. Appeal from the Allen Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 02D05-1911-F4-107

Bailey, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 1 of 6

Case Summary [1] John A. Trigg (“Trigg”) appeals the revocation of his placement in the Allen

County Drug Court Diversion Program (“the Program”). He presents the sole

issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his placement.

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On November 8, 2019, the State of Indiana charged Trigg with the following

offenses: Possession of Methamphetamine, as a Level 4 felony,1 Possession of

Cocaine, as a Level 5 felony,2 Possession of a Narcotic Drug, as a Level 5

felony,3 Driving With a Suspended License, as a Class A misdemeanor,4 and

Possession of Marijuana, as a Class B misdemeanor.5 On December 2, 2019,

Trigg pled guilty to all the charges. The trial court took the guilty plea under

advisement6 and ordered that Trigg be placed in the Program.

1 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-6.1(a). 2 I.C. § 35-48-4-6(a). 3 I.C. § 35-48-4-6(a). 4 I.C. § 9-24-19-2. 5 I.C. § 35-48-4-11(a)(1). 6 Indiana Code Section 23-33-16-14(a) provides that a court, without entering a judgment of conviction, may defer proceedings against an individual and place the individual in a problem-solving court program if the individual meets conditions for eligibility, pleads guilty and consents to the referral, and the judge, prosecuting attorney, and the individual agree on conditions for participation and the duration of those conditions.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 2 of 6 [3] On December 10, 2019, Trigg was released from an Allen County detention

facility. On the following day, a bench warrant was issued for Trigg’s arrest

because he had reportedly absconded from his alternative placement. The trial

court conducted a compliance hearing on December 16, 2019. Trigg was not

sanctioned and was permitted to continue in his placement. On March 5, 2020,

the trial court issued a second bench warrant upon allegations that Trigg had

again absconded. On March 9, 2020, a third bench warrant was issued upon

Trigg’s failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing. [4] On March 23, 2020, the State filed a petition to terminate Trigg’s participation

in the Program. The State alleged that Trigg had not completed residential

programming, had failed to report to his case manager, had failed to appear in

court as ordered, was noncompliant with random drug screens, and had failed

to maintain good behavior. On March 24, 2020, Trigg appeared in court and

admitted to the allegations. The trial court terminated Trigg’s participation in

the Program and entered judgments of conviction. [5] On April 23, 2020, Trigg was given concurrent sentences of ten years for

Possession of Methamphetamine, five years for Possession of Cocaine, five

years for Possession of a Narcotic Drug, one year for Driving with a Suspended

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 3 of 6

License, and 180 days for Possession of Marijuana. 7 Trigg now appeals the

revocation decision.

Discussion and Decision [6] Indiana Code Section 33-23-16-5 defines a drug court as “a problem-solving

court focused on addressing the substance abuse issues of defendants or

juveniles in the criminal justice system by: (1) bringing together substance

abuse rehabilitation professionals, local social programs, and intensive judicial

monitoring; and (2) linking eligible defendants or juveniles to individually

tailored programs or services.” Pursuant to Indiana Code Section 33-23-16-

14.5, a problem-solving court may terminate an individual’s participation in the

program if the individual has violated at least one of the conditions of the

individual’s participation agreement or case management plan. If, after

conducting a hearing, the problem-solving court judge or hearing officer finds

that an individual participating in a problem-solving court program has violated

a condition of the program, the judge or hearing officer may continue the

individual’s participation in the problem-solving court program with or without

modifying or expanding the individual’s conditions for participating in the

7 Trigg’s highest offense was a Level 4 felony. Indiana Code Section 35-50-2-5.5 provides that a person convicted of a Level 4 felony is subject to a sentence of between two years and twelve years, with six years as the advisory sentence. Trigg does not challenge his aggregate ten-year sentence.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 4 of 6

problem-solving court program; or terminate the individual’s participation in

the program. See id. [7] A drug court program is akin to a community corrections program and, like

probation, serves as an alternative to commitment to the Indiana Department of

Correction. Withers v. State, 15 N.E.3d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A

defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community

corrections program. Id. Placement is a matter of grace and a conditional

liberty that is a favor as opposed to a right. Id. We review the trial court’s

decisions for drug court program violations only for an abuse of discretion. Id.

at 665 (citing Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)). ‘“An abuse of

discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the

facts and circumstances.”’ Id. [8] Trigg’s participation in the Program was remarkably unsuccessful. Between

December 11, 2019 and March 9, 2020, three bench warrants were issued for

Trigg’s arrest. By his own admission, Trigg failed to successfully complete his

residency, comply with random drug screens, appear in court as ordered, report

to his case manager, and maintain good behavior. His admission alone is

sufficient to affirm the trial court’s judgment to revoke his placement. E.g.,

Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). [9] Trigg contends that he suffers from autism, anxiety, and substance abuse

disorders and needs more intensive therapy than that offered by the Program.

He details his juvenile and criminal history (eight delinquency adjudications,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 5 of 6

nine felonies, and ten misdemeanors) and failed responses to rehabilitative

efforts (three probation revocations, one suspended sentence revocation, two

failed sentence modifications, one revocation of home detention placement,

and an unsuccessful discharge from a HOPE program). With that background,

he argues that his failure in the Program was a “foregone conclusion” and he

was “fast-tracked” through a process that involved his forfeiture of the right to

negotiate for a favorable plea agreement. Appellant’s Brief at 18. Trigg claims

that the trial court’s response was overly harsh for what he characterizes as a

first offense. But Trigg’s attempt to shift responsibility for his rehabilitative

success to the trial court is unavailing. Given the facts and circumstances

before the court – that is – Trigg’s woeful lack of cooperation, the trial court did

not abuse its discretion in revoking Trigg’s placement.

Conclusion [10] Trigg has failed to demonstrate an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

[11] Affirmed.

Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1078 | October 13, 2020 Page 6 of 6