MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Feb 28 2017, 7:36 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Richard Walker Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Matthew B. MacKenzie
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Breon M. Davenport, February 28, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1604-CR-954
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Mark K. Dudley,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48C06-1505-F2-791
Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5
[1] Breon M. Davenport (“Davenport”) appeals the Madison Circuit Court’s order
revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his two-year placement in in-
home detention executed in the Department of Correction.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On May 27, 2015, seventeen-year-old Davenport and his accomplices stole
marijuana from the victim, and during the robbery, Davenport’s accomplice
shot the victim in the hand and thigh. The next day, Davenport was charged as
an adult with Level 2 felony aiding, inducing, or causing robbery resulting in
serious bodily injury, Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing armed
robbery, and Level 3 felony aggravated battery.
[4] On October 20, 2015, Davenport pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony aiding,
inducing, or causing robbery, a lesser included offense of the Level 2 felony
robbery charge, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. On
November 17, 2015, Davenport was ordered to serve a five-year sentence with
three years suspended to probation. The remaining two years were ordered
executed in in-home detention.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 5
[5] After serving approximately thirty days in in-home detention, Davenport
removed his ankle bracelet1, and his whereabouts became unknown. Therefore,
on January 6, 2016, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Davenport was arrested
on February 9, 2016.
[6] Davenport was taken to the Madison County Youth Center. While the center
was processing Davenport’s arrest, Davenport jumped over a counter, grabbed
a fire extinguisher, and ran into the security booth. The door automatically
locked behind Davenport. A Youth Center employee was trapped inside the
booth with Davenport, and he warned her not to open the door. Using the fire
extinguisher, Davenport smashed the security automated systems electronic
control panel, which controlled the locks for the facility, and damaged two
window panes. The incident continued for approximately ten minutes until law
enforcement personnel were able to calm Davenport and remove him from the
security booth.
[7] At the probation revocation hearing, Davenport admitted that he took
substantial steps toward commission of a new criminal offense, i.e. Level 6
felony escape. The trial court also found that he “took substantial steps in the
commission of the new criminal offense of Criminal Mischief, Class A
1
The State also alleged that Davenport committed theft of the ankle bracelet. However, at the revocation
hearing, Davenport stated that he returned the device to the appropriate authority. The trial court found that
the State failed to prove that Davenport committed theft.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 3 of 5
misdemeanor” for the acts Davenport committed on February 9, 2016 during
intake at the Youth Center.
[8] After concluding that Davenport violated terms of his probation, the court
observed that he “received a break when [he] got sentenced to In-Home as
opposed to the DOC for a Level 5 felony. That was a heck of a break. And by
your actions you’ve lost that break . . . .” Tr. p. 59. Therefore, the trial court
revoked Davenport’s placement in in-home detention and ordered him to serve
his two-year in-home detention executed in the Department of Correction.
Davenport was given credit for time served. He now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[9] Trial courts have the authority to place convicted persons in home detention
rather than in the Department of Correction. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775,
776-77 (Ind. 2015). “Home detention may be imposed as either a condition of
probation or as an alternative placement that is part of an offender'’ community
corrections program.” Id. at 777. Either way, the placement is a conditional
liberty given at the discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s
revocation thereof under the same standard. Id.
[10] Our standard for reviewing a probation revocation is well settled.
Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a
right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court
determines the conditions of probation and may revoke
probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has
exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5
incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in
deciding how to proceed. 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. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing
decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse
of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the
decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances.
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007).
[11] Davenport received a substantial benefit from his plea agreement and a lenient
sentence for the Level 5 felony robbery conviction. He was given the opportunity
to spend two years in in-home detention instead of the Department of
Correction. However, he failed to take advantage of the leniency afforded him.
[12] After serving approximately thirty days of In-Home Detention, Davenport cut
off his ankle monitor and escaped. When he was arrested over a month later,
he locked himself and a Youth Center employee in a security booth, and caused
over $3,000 worth of damage to the Youth Center.
[13] For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion
when it revoked Davenport’s probation and ordered him to serve his two-year
placement in in-home detention executed in the Department of Correction.
[14] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5