Opinion
23A-CR-2677
06-24-2024
Ieisha N. Haynes, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT David L. Joley Fort Wayne, 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Allen Superior Court The Honorable Steven O. Godfrey, Judge The Honorable Samuel R. Keirns, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D04-2203-F6-308
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
David L. Joley
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana
Jennifer Anwarzai
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Brown, Judge.
[¶1] Ieisha Haynes appeals the revocation of her placement in community corrections. She contends the State presented insufficient evidence that she violated the terms and conditions of her placement. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On March 16, 2022, the State charged Haynes with resisting law enforcement as a level 6 felony. In September 2022, Haynes pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement which provided for a two-year fully suspended sentence. On March 21, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Haynes's probation alleging that she violated the terms and conditions of her probation in failing to attend and complete substance abuse counseling. In April 2023, Haynes admitted to the violation and the trial court ordered Haynes to serve six months of her previously suspended sentence on electronic monitoring home detention through Allen County Community Corrections ("ACCC").
[¶3] On June 26, 2023, the State filed a second revocation petition alleging that Haynes failed to abide by program rules and failed to pay fees. In July 2023, Haynes admitted the violation and the trial court ordered her to serve the balance of her two-year suspended sentence in a residential services program through ACCC. The terms and conditions of the residential services program provided in relevant part:
I will cooperate with and truthfully answer all reasonable inquiries of (ACCC) personnel. I will not threaten or intimidate anyone while under supervision. I will not use verbally aggressive/abusive language to staff or other participants, nor will I be physically aggressive or abusive to staff or other participants.Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 38; Exhibits Volume at 5.
[¶4] On September, 8, 2023, the State filed a third revocation petition alleging that Haynes violated the terms and conditions of her residential services program "by using disrespectful, aggressive and threatening language" about her assigned case manager, Kayla Bivens. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 37. The State further alleged that Haynes had failed to pay required probation fees, resulting in an outstanding balance owed of $1,011.
[¶5] The trial court held a revocation hearing on October 12, 2023. Danielle Edenfield, the assistant director of ACCC, testified that the revocation of Haynes's placement was sought after she received information that Haynes "threatened or made threats" to cause harm to Bivens. Transcript Volume II at 38. Edenfield stated that she received both a verbal and written statement from another program participant, Shania Williams. Williams recounted to Edenfield that on September 1 or 2, 2023, Haynes was in the communal bathroom at the same time as Williams when Williams overheard Haynes threaten harm to Bivens by telling another program participant, Tanisha Ross, that if Bivens "kept playing with her" that "she was going to have someone hurt her . . . she was going to have someone follow her from the facility to her home, she was going to have someone hit her in the head with a brick or also have someone shoot her." Exhibits Volume at 33; Transcript Volume II at 42. Haynes further threatened to shoot Bivens herself. Id. A few days later, Williams was again in the communal bathroom when she heard Haynes state, "I'm really going to hurt this bitch" right after Haynes had met with Bivens. Id. Williams testified that she reported Haynes's threats because she was "concerned about [Bivens's] wellbeing." Transcript Volume II at 49. Haynes testified and admitted to having a poor relationship with Bivens, including filing a grievance against Bivens, but denied using any verbally aggressive language about Bivens or making any threats against her. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Haynes violated the terms of her placement and ordered her to serve the balance of her sentence in the Department of Correction ("DOC").
Discussion
[¶6] Haynes argues "there was insufficient evidence for her revocation from the community corrections program." Appellant's Brief at 9. "Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is 'a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.'" State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). "An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law." Id. (citations omitted). As with other sufficiency issues, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), trans. denied.
[¶7] Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5 provides that a defendant's placement in community corrections may be revoked, and the defendant may be committed to the DOC for the remainder of her sentence, if the defendant "violates the terms of the placement" in community corrections. A probation or community corrections placement revocation proceeding is a two-step process. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. First, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence showed that a violation occurred. Id. Second, the trial court must determine whether the probation violation warrants revocation of probation or some lesser sanction. Id. It is well settled that a single violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to support a revocation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015).
[¶8] As part of the terms and conditions of her placement, Haynes was not to threaten or intimidate anyone or use verbally aggressive/abusive language to staff or other participants. The State presented evidence that Haynes threatened to harm Bivens and used verbally aggressive/abusive language about Bivens to other program participants. Haynes suggests that her communications to others are insufficient to establish that she threatened or intimidated Bivens. Although this case involves a program rule violation and not the crime of intimidation, it is well-established that a defendant need not speak directly with a victim to communicate a threat for purposes of the intimidation statute. E.B. v. State, 89 N.E.3d 1087, 1091 (Ind.Ct.App. 2017). Rather, to communicate a threat for purposes of the offense of intimidation, the statement must be transmitted in such a way that the defendant knows or has good reason to believe the statement will reach the victim. Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035, 1043 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), trans. denied. From the evidence presented, the trial court here could reasonably infer that Haynes had good reason to believe that her statements, made in the residential program communal bathroom while other program participants were present, would be relayed to Bivens. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that Haynes violated the terms and conditions of her placement. Accordingly, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Haynes's placement and ordering her to serve the remainder of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC.
[¶9] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Haynes's placement.
[¶10] Affirmed.
May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.