Opinion
24A-CR-492
08-19-2024
Mustafa H. Wright, Appellant-Petitioner v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Respondent
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark S. Lenyo South Bend, Indiana. ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer Anwarzai 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 St. Joseph Superior Court The Honorable Jeffrey L. Sanford, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 71D03-0007-CF-339
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Mark S. Lenyo South Bend, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Jennifer Anwarzai Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
BRADFORD, JUDGE.
Case Summary
[¶1] After completing his executed time in the Indiana Department of Correction ("the DOC") for certain convictions, Mustafa Wright sought a sentence modification. The trial court granted Wright's modification petition and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in St. Joseph County Community Corrections ("SJCC"). After receiving notice of a second community-corrections violation, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, after which it found that Wright had violated the conditions of his placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. Wright contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement and that revocation was not an appropriate sanction. We disagree and affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In 2000, the State charged Wright with Class A felony attempted murder, Class A felony attempted robbery, and Class B felony conspiracy to deal cocaine. After trial, a jury found Wright guilty as charged. In August of 2001, the trial court sentenced Wright to forty years for his attempted-murder conviction, which was to run concurrently to his forty-year sentence for his attempted-robbery conviction and consecutively to his ten-year sentence for his conspiracy-to-deal-cocaine conviction. In July of 2021, Wright completed his sentences for his Class A felonies and was released to parole, making him eligible to seek modification on his Class B felony sentence.
[¶3] A few months thereafter, Wright petitioned the trial court to modify his sentence so that he could serve its remainder through SJCC's work-release program at the Ducomb Center. The trial court granted Wright's petition and ordered him to SJCC's work-release program. Upon entering the Ducomb Center, Wright agreed, via a signed contract, that if asked to provide a urine sample, he would do so within two hours or it would be considered a failed test.
[¶4] In February of 2022, Wright began his work-release program. By August of 2022, SJCC had moved Wright to home detention. Despite his employment, Wright failed to timely make payments towards his community-corrections fees. On August 8, 2023, Wright was terminated from his employment but neglected to inform SJCC officials. Between August 9th and August 31st, Wright continued to leave his home for eleven hours a day Monday through Friday and was mapped at various locations around South Bend, despite SJCC representatives believing that he had been scheduled to be at work. In September, SJCC notified the trial court that Wright had not complied with the conditions of his placement.
[¶5] In October, the trial court held a hearing on SJCC's report. At the hearing, the trial court found that Wright had not been taking his placement seriously and released Wright back to SJCC custody. The trial court also warned Wright that "if [it] gets a report again, that will be it" and it will send Wright back to the DOC. Tr. Vol. II p. 15. That same month, an official at the Ducomb Center presented Wright with a behavioral contract, which Wright signed and initialed by each term, indicating that he had read and understood each one. As part of the conditions of his placement, Wright agreed "not to receive any more serious [m]isconduct [r]eports" and "to abstain from using illegal substances or be in possession of any illegal substances for the rest" of his time on home detention. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 40. Wright also acknowledged that there was a "zero tolerance" policy and agreed that any breach of the contract would result in his termination from SJCC's community-corrections program. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 40.
[¶6] Two months later, SJCC received a telephone call in which the caller stated that she "no longer want[ed] Mustafa Wright or his equipment at [her] house[.]" Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 39. The Ducomb Center notified Wright of the call and ordered him to return to the Ducomb Center with his equipment. At intake, Ducomb Center officials asked Wright to provide a urine sample. After twenty minutes, Wright had not produced a sample and told staff that he would "p[***] when [he has] to p[***.]" Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 39. Over the next two hours, staff provided Wright with two cups of water; however, at the end of the two hours, Wright still did not provide a sample. Based on the contract that Wright had signed with the Ducomb Center and the Ducomb Center's urinesample protocol, if a sample is not provided after two hours, it is considered an "automatic dirty drop." Tr. Vol. II p. 32.
[¶7] On December 15, 2023, SJCC filed a violation report against Wright for "possession or use of unauthorized substance for refusing to provide a urine sample as requested" by SJCC staff. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 39. SJCC also noted that it was no longer willing to supervise Wright. In February of 2024, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing, during which it found that Wright had violated the conditions of his placement and ordered that he serve the remaining two years of his sentence in the DOC.
Discussion and Decision
[¶8] We review a trial court's decision on a petition to revoke a defendant's placement in a community-corrections programthe same as we do a decision to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). "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." Id. "A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community[-]corrections program." Id. Instead, "placement in either is a 'matter of grace' and a 'conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.'" Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind.Ct.App. 1995)).
[¶9] "Once a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed." Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). "If this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants." Id. "Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard." Id. "An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Id. We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and will look only to the evidence which supports the judgment and any reasonable inferences flowing therefrom." Richardson v. State, 890 N.E.2d 766, 768 (Ind.Ct.App. 2008).
[¶10] Wright argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that he had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC for a single violation.
Probation revocation is a two-step process. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008); Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (setting forth the two-step process in addressing the revocation of placement in community corrections), trans. denied. First, the court must make a factual determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640. If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation warrants revocation of the probation. Id.Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind.Ct.App. 2016). A trial court may revoke the defendant's placement upon proof of a single violation. Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind.Ct.App. 2021), trans. denied.
[¶11] Under step one, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in making a factual determination that Wright had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement. Upon starting SJCC's work-release program, Wright signed a contract agreeing that if asked to provide a urine sample, he must do so within two hours, or it would be considered a failed test. After the trial court returned Wright to SJCC after his first misconduct report, Wright signed a behavioral contract with the Ducomb Center, agreeing "not to receive any more serious [m]isconduct [r]eports" and "to abstain from using illegal substances or be in possession of any illegal substances for the rest" of his time on home detention. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 40. Thereafter, Wright was requested to provide a urine sample, which he failed to do in violation of the terms of his community-corrections placement. Wright's argument on this point essentially amounts to an invitation to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. Richardson, 890 N.E.2d at 768.
[¶12] When it comes to step two, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Wright to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. Upon Wright's return to SJCC after having received his first misconduct report, the trial court informed him that "if [it] gets a report again, that will be it" and it would send him back to the DOC. Tr. Vol. II p. 15. Moreover, Wright acknowledged that the contract he had signed with the Ducomb Center had a "zero tolerance" policy and that any breach of the contract would result in his termination from SJCC's community-corrections program. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 40. Notably, this violation was not Wright's first instance of non-compliance with the terms of his placement. Wright had also failed to make timely payments towards his community-corrections fees and to inform SJCC of his employment termination. As mentioned, proof of even a single violation is sufficient to warrant revocation of a community-corrections placement. Killebrew, 165 N.E.3d at 582.
[¶13] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Crone, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.