MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 18 2018, 9:04 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Anthony C. Lawrence Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Loretta Y. Mitchell, June 18, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
48A02-1710-CR-2571
v. Appeal from the Madison Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable David A. Happe,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
48C04-1311-FC-2162
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 1 of 6
Case Summary and Issue
[1] The trial court revoked Loretta Mitchell’s placement in community corrections
and ordered her to serve the remainder of her sentence in the Indiana
Department of Correction. Mitchell appeals, raising one issue for our review:
whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke her placement in community
corrections. Concluding sufficient evidence was presented to revoke her
placement, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In 2014, Mitchell pleaded guilty to battery by means of a deadly weapon, a
Class C felony, and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial
court sentenced Mitchell to a total of six years in the Department of Correction
with two of those years suspended to probation.
[3] In April of 2017, the State alleged Mitchell had committed a probation
violation and moved to revoke her probation. Mitchell admitted the violation
and the trial court revoked the suspended portion of her sentence and placed
her in the Continuum of Sanctions Program in the Madison Community Justice
Center. Mitchell was subsequently placed on work release and, in a relatively
short period of time, committed a rules violation by failing to return. The trial
court ordered Mitchell to serve sixty days in the Madison County Detention
Center and, upon completion of that sentence, return to the Continuum of
Sanctions Program to serve the remainder of her sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 2 of 6
[4] In August of 2017, the Continuum of Sanctions Program alleged Mitchell
violated program rules by failing to report to a Community Justice Center
appointment with the program coordinator, Stephanie McCreary. The trial
court held an evidentiary hearing on October 2, 2017, at which McCreary
testified she met with Mitchell on July 25, 2017, advised her of the program’s
rules and that she needed to attend meetings, and informed her that her next
meeting was scheduled for August 1, 2017. McCreary stated Mitchell did not
attend the scheduled appointment and she did not hear from her after that
point. Mitchell also testified and stated McCreary told her she would send a
letter with the date of her next scheduled appointment. Mitchell alleged she
never received a letter and that the letter McCreary allegedly attempted to send
to her contained the incorrect address. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
trial court revoked Mitchell’s placement in the program and ordered her to
serve the remaining portion of her sentence in the Department of Correction.
Mitchell now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] Mitchell’s sole argument is the evidence is insufficient to show she violated the
terms of her placement in the Continuum of Sanctions Program. We review a
decision to revoke placement in a community corrections program in the same
manner as a decision to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549
(Ind. 1999). “A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only
prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id. at 551.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 3 of 6
We will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses and will
consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court. Id.
“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.” Id. The violation of a single condition of
probation is enough to support revocation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
[6] Mitchell’s main concern regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is with what
she describes as “inconsistencies” in McCreary’s testimony and the letter she
allegedly sent to Mitchell. Appellant’s Brief at 11. The letter states,
July 28, 2017
Loretta Mitchell
331 West 9th St.
Anderson, IN 46016
Ms. Mitchell,
On 7/28/2017, you failed to attend your 2:00 p.m. scheduled
appointment at the Madison County Community Justice Center.
Several attempts to contact you by phone have been
unsuccessful. This letter is to inform you that you are to
physically report to the Madison County Community Justice
Center on August 11, 2017, at 11 a.m. If you fail to attend this
scheduled appointment, a warrant for your arrest will be issued
and a termination of your executed sentence under cause number
will be filed.
Appellant’s Appendix, Volume II at 33. Mitchell contends she never received
this letter and alleges it contains the wrong address, it states the incorrect date,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 6
and it states McCreary attempted to call her when she does not have a phone
number. Although Mitchell points out alleged errors in the letter, if she did not
receive the letter, the letter is of no consequence and she should have reported
to the Madison County Community Justice Center at the time McCreary told
her in their meeting. If she did receive the letter and it contained
inconsistencies, she should have contacted McCreary for clarification.
[7] Regardless of any inconsistencies with the letter, McCreary testified when she
met with Mitchell on July 25, 2017, she orally informed her of the date of her
next appointment—August 1, 2017. She informed Mitchell of the rules and
regulations of the program which included the fact that she must attend all
scheduled meetings. She also stated she verified all of Mitchell’s contact
information with her on that date. The trial court believed McCreary’s
testimony and stated, “I don’t care if the letter was never sent at all. [Mitchell]
had notice at the meeting with Ms. McCreary that she needed to be there and
she didn’t do that.” Transcript, Volume II at 33. This evidence is sufficient to
show Mitchell violated the rules of the program by failing to attend a meeting.
Mitchell’s argument to the contrary is simply a request to reweigh the evidence,
which we cannot do. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549.
Conclusion
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 5 of 6
[8] There was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s decision to revoke
Mitchell’s placement in community corrections. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court’s decision.
[9] Affirmed.
Najam, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1710-CR-2571 | June 18, 2018 Page 6 of 6