Opinion
24A-CR-679
08-30-2024
Demetris D. Lloyd, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Jamie C. Egolf Fort Wayne, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General J.T. Whitehead 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 Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.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 Samuel R. Keirns, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 02D06-2211-F3-102
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Jamie C. Egolf Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General
J.T. Whitehead Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
MEMORANDUM DECISION
VAIDIK, JUDGE
Case Summary
[¶1] Demetris D. Lloyd appeals the revocation of his community-corrections placement. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] In November 2022, the State charged Lloyd with Level 3 felony criminal confinement, Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, and Level 6 felony pointing a firearm. In October 2023, the parties entered into a plea agreement under which Lloyd agreed to plead guilty to the Level 4 felony, the State agreed to dismiss the other charges, and the executed portion of Lloyd's sentence was capped at five years. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Lloyd to nine years, with four years executed in the Allen County Community Corrections Residential Services Program and five years suspended (with two of those years on probation).
[¶3] Lloyd started the Residential Services Program on November 22. Less than two months later, on January 3, 2024, Lloyd appeared before the trial court for an informal adjustment to address missed and positive drug screens. The court placed him on a "zero tolerance" policy for any future violations. Tr. Vol. II pp. 4, 23.
[¶4] Three weeks later, on January 24, Lloyd was attending intensive outpatient therapy at Park Center in Fort Wayne. He had been taking Suboxone for his opiate-use disorder for about a week. During a break in a therapy session, Lloyd was found unresponsive and vomiting. Staff believed he was overdosing. Narcan was administered, but Lloyd's condition did not improve. He was taken by ambulance to a hospital. After Lloyd was released from the hospital a couple of hours later, he was returned to the Residential Services Program, where his hospital records were given to staff. Staff reviewed the records and noted that Lloyd had reported using K2. Specifically, the section called "History of Present Illness" provides that Lloyd "admits to taking 'K2' in a paper form of some sort.... He denies any misuse of his Suboxone that is prescribed for opiate use disorder." Ex. 3. In addition, the section "Medical Decision Making" provides:
29-year-old male presents with alteration of mentation he was given Narcan intranasally with minimal response. Patient is somnolent but arouses easily to verbal stimulus, he is on Suboxone chronically. Would be difficult to overdose on Suboxone, he does admit to using K2 synthetic marijuana derivative. His urine drug screen here is negative his alcohol is negative ....Id.
[¶5] The next day, Allen County Community Corrections petitioned to revoke Lloyd's placement, alleging that he used drugs in violation of the Residential Services Program's rules. At the hearing, Lloyd testified that although he had used K2 "in the past," he didn't use it on January 24, 2024. Tr. Vol. II p. 38. He claimed that Suboxone-not K2-caused him to become unresponsive and vomit. The trial court found that Lloyd violated a condition of his community-corrections placement by using K2 and ordered him to serve four years in prison. The court said that after Lloyd served four years in prison, he still had "a five (5) year suspended sentence which includes two (2) years of probation." Id. at 46.
[¶6] Lloyd now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[¶7] Lloyd contends the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that he violated a condition of his community-corrections placement. We treat a petition to revoke a community-corrections placement the same as a petition to revoke probation. Coxv. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'gdenied. The State need only prove an alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 551. We consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the court's finding of a violation. Id.
As the State points out, Lloyd briefly addresses the sanction he received at the end of his brief. We agree with the State that Lloyd has waived any challenge to his sanction for failing to present a cogent argument. Notably, Lloyd did not file a reply brief to dispute the State's assertion that he has waived any challenge to his sanction.
[¶8] Lloyd argues the evidence is insufficient to prove that he used K2 on January 24, 2024. The record shows that Lloyd was taken to the hospital that day because he was unresponsive and vomiting. When he arrived at the hospital, he had an altered mental state and was sleepy. Lloyd's hospital records show that he admitted using K2. Although the records don't specifically state that Lloyd admitted using K2 that day, it is clear from the context of the entry under "Medical Decision Making" that that is the case. Specifically, the doctor noted: "Would be difficult to overdose on Suboxone, he does admit to using K2 synthetic marijuana derivative." In other words, the doctor didn't think that Lloyd's condition that day was caused by Suboxone but rather by his admitted use of K2. Although Lloyd's urine drug screen at the hospital was negative, he didn't present any evidence below and doesn't argue on appeal that the hospital's urine drug screen even tested for K2. Indeed, the State argued during closing that "K2 is a drug of choice for many people because it[']s difficult to catch on a medical urine screen often times in a regular screen as well, unless they're looking for it." Tr. Vol. II p. 43. The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Lloyd violated a condition of his community-corrections placement by using K2. We therefore affirm the trial court.
[¶9] Affirmed.
Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.