MEMORANDUM DECISION
Jun 03 2015, 7:27 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller
Wieneke Law Office Attorney General of Indiana
Plainfield, Indiana
Tyler G. Banks
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Meghan Hambright, June 3, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
84A01-1501-CR-13
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
The Honorable David R. Bolk,
State of Indiana, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No. 84D03-1310-
FC-3099
Bradford, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] After pleading guilty to Class C felony operating a vehicle after forfeiture of her
license for life, Appellant-Defendant Meghan Hambright was sentenced to two
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1501-CR-13| June 3, 2015 Page 1 of 5
years of home detention. Hambright was to begin her home detention within
one month of sentencing, one of the requirements of which was that Hambright
secure a landline telephone line for monitoring equipment. Approximately two
months later and after Hambright had been given extra time to secure a landline
telephone, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”) petitioned to
revoke Hambright’s direct commitment to home detention. Following a
hearing, the trial court revoked Hambright’s home detention and ordered her to
serve her two-year sentence in the Department of Correction. Hambright
appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion, arguing essentially
that her failure to secure a landline telephone was not her fault. Concluding the
trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On October 7, 2013, Hambright was charged with Class C felony operating a
vehicle after forfeiture of her license for life. (Appellant’s App. 2). On April 8,
2014, West Central Regional Community Corrections (“West Central”) filed a
letter in the trial court indicating that it would accept Hambright on home
detention in the event of conviction and a court order to that effect.
(Appellant’s App. 25). The letter indicated, inter alia, that “[i]f client will be
using equipment requiring telephone service client MUST HAVE a working
landline phone service through AT&T ONLY!” Appellant’s App. p. 25
(emphasis in original).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1501-CR-13| June 3, 2015 Page 2 of 5
[3] On August 11, 2014, Hambright pled guilty as charged. (Appellant’s App. 32-
33). On September 8, 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court
sentenced Hambright to two years of incarceration, to be served as direct
commitment to home detention under the supervision of the Vigo County
Home Detention Program. (Appellant’s App. 34). The sentencing order
provided that Hambright was to commence her sentence within thirty days, or
by October 8, 2014. (Appellant’s App. 34). At some point, Hambright
petitioned to have her direct commitment transferred to West Central. (Tr. 11).
West Central gave Hambright a deadline of October 29, 2014, by which she
was to secure a landline telephone, which represents a three-week extension.
(Tr. 12). As of October 30, 2014, Hambright had not commenced her direct
commitment or contacted West Central. (Tr. 12).
[4] On November 7, 2014, the State filed a petition to revoke Hambright’s
commitment home detention, alleging that she had yet to begin her direct
commitment despite having been given additional time to secure the landline
telephone in her home. (Appellant’s App. 39). On December 11, 2014, the trial
court held a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke direct commitment.
Following the hearing, the trial court revoked Hambright’s commitment to
home detention and ordered that she serve her two-year sentence in the
Department of Correction. (Appellant’s App. 47).
Discussion and Decision
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1501-CR-13| June 3, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[5] Hambright contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her
home detention because the State failed to show that her failure to secure a
landline telephone was her fault. 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. Cox v.
State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). The similarities between the two dictate
this approach. Id. 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. Rather,
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) (internal quotation omitted)).
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 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.
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999) (citations omitted).
[6] We conclude that Hambright has failed to establish that the trial court abused
its discretion. It is undisputed that Hambright failed to have a landline
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1501-CR-13| June 3, 2015 Page 4 of 5
telephone installed in her residence, a required condition for home detention.
As early as April of 2014—seven months before the State filed its revocation
provision—Hambright was likely put on notice regarding the landline telephone
requirement of home detention by the letter from West Central. At the very
least, Hambright never denies, and the record clearly indicates, that she was
fully aware of the requirement in the time period following her guilty plea on
August 11, 2014. Despite this notice, and a three-week grace period granted by
West Central, Hambright still did not have a landline telephone installed
approximately three months later, when the State filed its petition to revoke
home detention on November 7, 2014. Hambright points to evidence that she
contacted AT&T several times regarding the landline telephone to no avail.
The trial court, however was free to disbelieve Hambright’s testimony regarding
her diligence, and apparently did. Hambright’s argument is an invitation to
reweigh the evidence, which we will not do.
[7] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., concurs.
Kirsch, J., dissents.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 84A01-1501-CR-13| June 3, 2015 Page 5 of 5