MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 19 2016, 5:26 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
regarded as precedent or cited before any Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
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
Ronald K. Smith Gregory F. Zoeller
Muncie, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William E. Stanard, April 19, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A02-1508-CR-1170
v. Appeal from the Delaware Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marianne L.
Appellee-Plaintiff. Vorhees, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
18C01-1405-FD-72
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 1 of 6
[1] Soon after beginning to serve an eighteen-month sentence on direct
commitment to Delaware County Community Corrections (DCCC), William
E. Stanard violated the terms of said commitment on four separate occasions.
Stanard admitted the violations but argued they did not warrant revocation of
his placement. The trial court disagreed and ordered Stanard to serve the
remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction (DOC). On appeal,
Stanard argues that the trial court abused its discretion.
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] On May 5, 2014, the State charged Stanard with two counts of class D felony
theft, which allegedly occurred on two consecutive days at the Walmart in
Muncie, Indiana. Stanard pled guilty to one count of theft in exchange for
dismissal of the other. The plea agreement further provided for an eighteen-
month executed sentence to be served on electronic home detention. On March
4, 2015, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Stanard
accordingly, allowing him to serve his eighteen-month sentence as a direct
commitment to DCCC on house arrest with electronic monitoring. Stanard
began his placement with DCCC on April 8, 2015.
[4] Just over a month later, on May 14, 2015, the State filed a petition to revoke
Stanard’s placement. The petition alleged that Stanard tested positive for
alcohol on April 8, 15, and 30 and May 1, 2015, in violation of DCCC’s home
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6
detention rules. At the fact-finding hearing on June 22, 2015, Stanard admitted
the violations, and the trial court so found.
[5] The dispositional hearing was held on July 15, 2015. Stanard testified at the
hearing and indicated that he has battled an addiction to alcohol most of his
life. He asked the court to allow him to go back on home detention with day
reporting to show accountability and to have the opportunity to take Antabuse
to help him stop drinking. The trial court refused Stanard’s request, noting that
he has had “plenty of opportunities” in the past to address his alcohol abuse.
Transcript at 20. The court then revoked Stanard’s direct placement with
DCCC and ordered the balance of his sentence to be served in the DOC.
Discussion & Decision
[6] On appeal, Stanard argues that because the violations exclusively involved
alcohol consumption, “an appropriate sanction would have been one which
addressed his alcohol problem, rather than executing the balance of his
sentence.” Appellant’s Brief at 6. Stanard notes his expression of remorse for
drinking, as well as his testimony that he would comply with all conditions and
take Antabuse if returned to home detention.1
1
Stanard also asserts, without explanation, that this case is analogous to Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2012) (abuse of discretion found where a very slight violation was unintentionally committed by a
sixty-nine-year-old defendant suffering from terminal cancer, who took steps to correct the technical violation
upon discovering it). It is not.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6
[7] For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke
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).
Like probation, a defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in a community
corrections program. Id. Rather, such placement is a matter of grace and a
conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. Once a trial court has
exercised its grace in this regard, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to
proceed when the conditions of placement are violated. See Prewitt v. State, 878
N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing decisions
for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard.”
Id. We will find an abuse of discretion only where the decision is clearly
against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. See id.
[8] The trial court explained its reasons for ordering Stanard to serve the remainder
of his sentence in the DOC:
1. Defendant has received the benefit of rehabilitative
opportunities in the [DOC], which have failed: Burglary,
a Class C felony, in Cause No. 57D01-8705-CF-0015;
Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated Causing Serious
Bodily Injury (Cause No. 18D04-9801-DF-0004); Theft, a
Class D felony, with the Habitual Offender Enhancement
(Cause No. 33D02-0402-FD-0048).
2. Defendant has received the benefit of serving executed
sentences in the Delaware County Jail, without being sent
to the [DOC], and he has failed to take advantage of these
opportunities: Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated, a
Class D felony (Cause No. 18C04-0208-FD-0270);
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6
Disorderly Conduct, a Class B misdemeanor (Cause No.
18C05-0805-FD-0045); Operating a Vehicle While
Intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor (Cause No. 18H01-
1005-CM-0993).
3. Defendant has had the opportunity to rehabilitate himself
through a prior direct commitment to electronic home
detention and did not take advantage of that opportunity:
Robbery, a Class C felony (Cause No. 18C03-0907-FC-
0022).
4. Defendant has had the opportunity to rehabilitate himself
through supervised probation and did not take advantage:
Driving While Intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor
(Cause No. 57E01-9007-CM-0649); Operating a Vehicle
While Intoxicated Causing Serious Bodily Injury (Cause
No. 18D04-9801-DF-0004).
5. Defendant had the opportunity to serve the executed
sentence as a direct commitment to electronic home
detention in this case and committed four violations in less
than One (1) Month.
6. Defendant has a severe alcohol addiction, which the Court
finds he should address in the [DOC], as all other options
have failed.
7. Defendant is requesting one last chance; however, as the
cases cited above show, Defendant has received numerous
“second chance” opportunities, and he has not taken
advantage of them.
Appellant’s Appendix at 40-41.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6
[9] The trial court’s decision to deny Stanard’s request for yet another chance is
amply supported by the record and, thus, not clearly against the logic and effect
of the facts and circumstances. The trial court was well within its discretion
when it ordered Stanard to serve the balance of his sentence in the DOC.
[10] Judgment affirmed.
[11] Robb, J. and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A02-1508-CR-1170 | April 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6