MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 20 2017, 8:49 am
court except for the purpose of establishing
CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
William J. Woodford Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William J. Woodford, June 20, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1612-CR-2812
v. Appeal from the
Elkhart Circuit Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Plaintiff. Terry C. Shewmaker, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-9912-CF-140
Kirsch, Judge.
[1] Following remand from this court, William J. Woodford (“Woodford”) appeals
the trial court’s order that modified his sentence placement. He raises the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 1 of 9
following restated issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it
denied Woodford’s request to reduce or suspend his sentence by thirty years
and, instead, ordered that the final twelve years be served on home detention.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] In 2016, our court outlined the facts and procedural history of Woodford’s case
as follows:
In 2000, Woodford was convicted of Dealing in Cocaine, as a
Class A felony, and Possession of a Controlled Substance, a
Class D felony, and adjudicated a habitual offender. The trial
court imposed an aggregate sentence of seventy years in the
Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). In 2001, the
Indiana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. Woodford v.
State, 752 N.E.2d 1278 (Ind. 2001), cert. denied. Woodford was
subsequently denied post-conviction relief, and this Court
affirmed the post-conviction court’s order. See Woodford v. State,
No. 20A04-0202-PC-69, 783 N.E.2d 803, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App.
Jan. 17, 2003).1
On July 13, 2009, Woodford filed a petition for sentence
modification, which the trial court denied for lack of jurisdiction.
On June 20, 2014, Woodford filed another petition for sentence
modification, which the court denied for the same reason. The
1
In this appeal, the State advises that Woodford filed a second post-conviction relief petition in June 2006,
the post-conviction court denied that petition in February 2007, and this court affirmed the denial of the post-
conviction relief petition in an unpublished decision on January 23, 2008. Appellee’s Br. at 5 (citing Woodford
v. State, No. 20A03-0703-PC-146 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2008)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 2 of 9
trial court also denied Woodford’s petition for sentence
modification filed July 21, 2014.
On September 28, 2015, Woodford filed a new petition for
sentence modification and request to modify his placement to
community corrections, drawing the court’s attention to his age
(sixty-one), educational achievements, and the fact that he had
remained free of conduct violations during his nearly sixteen-year
imprisonment. Specifically, Woodford asked the court “to
reduce or suspend his sentence to forty (40) years and to place
him in a community corrections work release program.” The
court initially denied the motion; however, it ordered the DOC to
file a progress report and stated that “it may reconsider its ruling
upon receipt of said report.” After receiving and reviewing the
report, the court scheduled a hearing on the motion.
A hearing was held December 10, 2015. On January 4, 2016, the
trial court declined to reduce Woodford’s sentence, but ordered
that his final twelve years be served in community corrections on
in-home detention, subject to his acceptance to the program.2
Woodford v. State, 58 N.E.3d 282, 283-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (footnotes and
citations to record omitted) (“Woodford 2016”).
2
The record before us reflects that in the January 4, 2016 order, the trial court recognized Woodford’s “long
history of involvement with the law” that spanned from 1974 “up to and including his conviction for [the
current] offenses in 1999 or 2000” and that “there have been controlled substance issues in addition to the
Defendant’s criminal history.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 50. While the trial court praised Woodford for his
“positive endeavors while incarcerated” and congratulated Woodford on his exemplary conduct record, it
determined that “[i]n light of the Defendant’s lengthy criminal history, the Court will not suspend the
Defendant’s sentence[,]” but “will, however, modify the Defendant’s placement for twelve years of his
remaining sentence to [] Community Corrections[.]” Id. at 51.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 3 of 9
[4] Woodford appealed the trial court’s January 4, 2016 decision, which modified
his sentence placement, but did not grant the full relief sought. In Woodford
2016, this court determined that it was unclear from the hearing transcript and
the trial court’s written order “whether the trial court was operating under the
2015 sentence modification statute when it modified Woodford’s placement
rather than reduce or suspend his sentence[,]” and it remanded “with
instructions to hold a new hearing on Woodford’s petition and consider it under
the revised statute, Indiana Code § 35-38-1-17.” Id. at 287-88.
[5] On November 17, 2016, in accordance with this court’s directive in Woodford
2016, the trial court held another hearing on Woodford’s petition. At the
hearing, Woodford requested that the trial court recognize Woodford’s efforts
toward rehabilitation, including that he had received no conduct violations in
over sixteen years of incarceration and that he had earned various educational
achievements.3 Woodford urged that his record of incarceration reflected that
“the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation ha[d] been met.” Tr. at 3.
Woodford asked that the trial court suspend or reduce his seventy-year sentence
by thirty years and place him in a community corrections work release
program. The State objected to reducing Woodford’s sentence to forty years.
3
Woodford states on appeal that he (1) obtained a legal assistance/paralegal diploma from Blackstone
Career Institute; (2) earned a Computer Operator Apprenticeship from the United States Department of
Labor; (3) completed an Associate of Science Degree in Organizational Leadership from Grace College; and
(4) had not received any conduct reports for violating a DOC rule since being incarcerated. Appellant’s Br. at
9 (citing to Appellant’s Appendix Vol. II at 28-31).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 4 of 9
[6] At the hearing, the trial court commended Woodford on his positive
incarceration record,4 stating that it took that positive record into consideration
when it previously modified Woodford’s placement for the last twelve years of
his sentence from DOC to home detention through the county community
corrections program. The trial court explained:
I believe you made the argument [that] I should reduce [your
sentence] at the original hearing on the modification. If I did
that, you would go to probation. And I remembered in your case
that you had a serious drug addiction issue at the time this
offense occurred.
. . . [I]f you were on probation I was worried, because they only
test you once a month for drug screening, I was concerned for
you that the temptation might be too much. . . . I felt I could
have, but I didn’t do that. I chose not to do that.
I chose the 12 year modification to community corrections,
which is the largest modification I have ever made in my 18 years
as judge, I believe. I chose that because they would test you
more frequently and that was my concern for you.
. . . I’m still convinced I’m right on that.
Id. at 6. After considering Woodford’s petition under the 2015 version of the
statute, as Woodford 2016 had instructed it to do on remand, the trial court
declined to reduce or suspend Woodford’s sentence as requested and restated its
4
The trial court shared, “[F]or 18 years I’ve looked at progress reports; and I think yours is probably the best
one I have seen for the longest period of incarceration.” Tr. at 5.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 5 of 9
prior decision to have Woodford serve the final twelve years of his sentence on
home detention through a community corrections program. Id. at 7. The trial
court’s written order similarly stated, in part:
[T]he Court ratifies its prior decision and modifies the placement
of Mr. Woodford such that the final twelve (12) years of his
sentence will be served at Elkhart County Community
Corrections on the Home Detention Program with weekly or
frequent drug testing to assure compliance with the rules of
community corrections.
Appellant’s App. at 22. Woodford, proceeding pro se, now appeals.5
Discussion and Decision
[7] Woodford asserts the trial court erred by denying his petition for sentence
modification filed under Indiana Code section 35-38-1-17. We review a trial
court’s decision as to a motion to modify only for an abuse of discretion. Carr v.
State, 33 N.E.3d 358, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied; Hobbs v. State, 26
N.E.3d 983, 985 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). An abuse of discretion has occurred
when the court’s decision was “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts
and circumstances before the court.” Carr, 33 N.E.2d at 359. Woodford claims
that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not reduce or suspend his
sentence and place him on work release, as Woodford had requested, and,
instead, the trial court reaffirmed its prior decision to order that the final twelve
5
As did our colleagues in Woodford v. State, 58 N.E.3d 282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), we commend Woodford on
the quality of his appellate briefs. Id. at 287 n.10.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 6 of 9
years be served through Elkhart Community Corrections in the Home
Detention Program.
[8] In August 2016, this court remanded the matter to the trial court with
instructions to consider Woodford’s petition under Indiana Code section 35-38-
1-17, which as amended effective May 2015, stated as follows:
(e) At any time after:
(1) a convicted person begins serving the person’s sentence; and
(2) the court obtains a report from the department of correction
concerning the convicted person’s conduct while imprisoned;
the court may reduce or suspend the sentence and impose a
sentence that the court was authorized to impose at the time of
sentencing. The court must incorporate its reasons in the record.
....
(h) The court may deny a request to suspend or reduce a sentence
under this section without making written findings and
conclusions.
[9] Here, at the conclusion of the November 2016 remand hearing on Woodford’s
petition, the trial court stated that it had considered the 2015 statute as directed
by Woodford 2016 and reaffirmed its position to modify the final twelve years of
placement from the DOC to home detention. On appeal, Woodford refers us to
discussion in Woodford 2016, where this court recognized the General
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 7 of 9
Assembly’s efforts in 2014 to “comprehensively reform[]” the criminal code
with the goals of reducing crime “by promoting evidence based best practices
for rehabilitating offenders in a community setting” and “keep[ing] dangerous
offenders in prison by avoiding the use of scarce prison space for nonviolent
offenders[.]” 58 N.E.3d at 286. Woodford argues that the trial court’s
modified sentence was an abuse of discretion, urging that the State did not
show that Woodford is not rehabilitated or poses a threat to society, and
“prison resources could be better used for either violent offenders or offenders
who are not rehabilitated[,] instead of for Woodford who is nonviolent and
rehabilitated.” Reply Br. at 6-7.
[10] In support of his position that the trial court abused its discretion by not
granting him the full relief that he requested, Woodford asserts that it was not
logical for the trial court to find that Woodford’s prior drug addiction
“permit[ted] placement on in-home detention [for] the final twelve years of his
sentence but preclude[d] a reduction or suspension of the sentence to forty years
and placement in a community corrections work release program.” Id. at 6-7.
His argument, however, mischaracterizes the trial court’s ruling and
explanation. The trial court did not suggest that it was “precluded” from
suspending or reducing the sentence; rather, it chose not to, which was within
its discretion. The trial court engaged in dialogue with Woodford about
Woodford’s serious drug addiction that existed at the time of trial and
explained to Woodford its reasoning for choosing to place Woodford in the
Home Detention Program, where he would undergo “weekly or frequent” drug
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 8 of 9
screening, which the trial court believed would be appropriate for Woodford.
Appellant’s App. at 21. The trial court stated its reasons on the record in support
of its decision, as it was required to do under the statute. See Ind. Code § 35-38-
1-17(e) (court may modify sentence as long as it incorporates its reasons in the
record). In this case, after reviewing the petition on remand, the trial court
declined to change its prior sentencing modification. Woodford has not proven
that the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion.
[11] Affirmed.
[12] Mathias, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1612-CR-2812 | June 20, 2017 Page 9 of 9