Brady A. Michel, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Brady Michel appeals the trial court's order revoking Michel's direct placement in community corrections and ordering that he serve his three-and-one-half-year sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”) as a sanction for his community corrections violation. Michel argues that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering this sanction. We disagree and affirm.

Issue

[2] Michel raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Michel's direct placement in community corrections and ordering that he serve his three-and-one-half-year sentence in the DOC as a sanction for his community corrections violation.

Facts

[3] On December 29, 2021, the State charged Michel with theft, a Level 6 felony, and false informing, a Class B misdemeanor, in Cause No. 84D01-2112-F6-4338 (“Cause No. 4338”). The offenses occurred while Michel was on probation in Cause No. 84D01-1912-F6-4684 (“Cause No. 4684”), and a petition to revoke probation was pending in that case.

[4] After an initial hearing in Cause No. 4338, Michel was placed on pre-trial release with weekly reporting to probation. Michel, however, failed to appear at a subsequent pre-trial hearing. Michel was eventually detained pursuant to a bench warrant and placed on work release pending trial.

[5] On July 5, 2022, the State petitioned to revoke Michel's pre-trial placement on work release on the grounds that, on June 30, 2022, Michel failed to return to the work release facility after a scheduled visit to the Wabash Valley Health Center. The State charged Michel with failure to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony, in Cause No. 84D01-2207-F5-002377 (“Cause No. 2377”). The trial court issued a bench warrant, and Michel was again detained.

[6] Michel and the State entered into a plea agreement wherein Michel agreed to: (1) plead guilty to theft, a Level 6 felony, in Cause No. 4338, and failure to return to lawful detention, a Level 6 felony, in Cause No. 2377; and (2) admit that he violated the conditions of his probation in Cause No. 4684. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charge.

[7] On July 12, 2023, the trial court accepted the plea agreement, entered judgments of conviction in Cause No. 4338 and Cause No. 2337, and terminated Michel's probation in Cause No. 4684. The trial court sentenced Michel to an aggregate term of three-and-one-half years on direct placement to “dual diagnosis work release through Vigo County Community Corrections.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 78. The dual diagnosis program is designed for individuals battling with substance abuse and mental health issues. Participants in the dual diagnosis program begin on a three-and-one-half-week “mandatory lockdown” period, during which they receive evaluations and assessments for their diagnoses. Once evaluated and given a treatment program, participants are permitted to leave the work release facility to search for employment. Tr. Vol. II p. 10.

[8] On October 10, 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke Michel's community corrections work release placement. The petition alleged that, on August 30, 2023, while Michel was scheduled for a job search, community corrections received a “tamper alert,” which indicated that Michel had removed his GPS unit, and Michel thereafter failed to report to community corrections. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 87. A bench warrant was issued, and Michel was detained pending a hearing on the State's petition.

[9] The trial court held a hearing on the State's petition on February 15, 2024. Abbie Shidler, a community corrections work release case manager, testified that Michel was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, opiate dependence, methamphetamine abuse, cannabis abuse, and Crohn's disease. Shidler had no indication that Michel was not compliant with his medication regimen during his lockdown period. Shidler further testified that, after the lockdown period, Michel was permitted to search for jobs, but “[t]he second day he was allowed out to job search he ran.” Tr. Vol. II p. 12. Shidler did not believe Michel would be successful if placed back on work release because “we have no way of knowing that he would remain there.” Id. at 15.

[10] The trial court determined that the State proved the community corrections violation and proceeded to hold a disposition hearing. Probation Officer Bradley Burton testified that Michel was not compliant with the conditions of his pre-trial release in Cause No. 4338; Michel failed to call in for drug screening a majority of the time and failed to comply with a required substance abuse treatment program. Officer Burton further testified that Michel failed to meet the conditions of his probation in Cause No. 4684; Michel failed to enroll in a “sober living” program, failed to complete community service, and tested positive for illegal drugs. Consequently, Michel's probation in that case was revoked. Officer Burton did not believe Michel would be successful on probation.

[11] Michel requested that the trial court return him to community corrections on the dual diagnosis work release program. Michel testified that he had not been in the dual diagnosis program “long enough for the medication to actually set in and start to take effect.” Id. at 41. He further testified that, if he was given another chance in the program, he “would take it a lot more seriously.” Id. at 42. Michel also admitted that he was convicted of several drug-related offenses in Wyoming, but he “ran on probation from out there” and came to Indiana. Id. at 43.

[12] The trial court revoked Michel's community corrections placement and ordered that he serve his three-and-one-half-year sentence in the DOC. Michel now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Michel argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community corrections direct placement and ordering that he serve his three-and-one-half-year sentence in the DOC. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

[14] “The standard of review for revocation of a community corrections placement is the same standard as for a probation revocation.” Bennett v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019) (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). This is because “[b]oth 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.” Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549). Accordingly, placement in a community corrections program “is a matter of grace and not a right.” Id. (citing Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549).

[15] We review a trial court's sanction for the violation of a community corrections placement under the abuse of discretion standard. Pucket v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022) (citing Johnson, 62 N.E.3d at 1230), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id. (citing Johnson, 62 N.E.3d at 1230). We neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Id. (citing Johnson, 62 N.E.3d at 1230).

B. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

[16] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Michel's community corrections direct placement and ordering that he serve his three-and-one-half-year sentence in the DOC. Michel has repeatedly disregarded court orders and more lenient sanctions: he failed to appear after being granted pre-trial release; he absconded after his pre-trial release was modified to work release; and he absconded again while serving his sentence on work release. His probation was revoked in a different matter for violating multiple conditions of his placement. See, e.g., Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (affirming probation revocation based on probationer's repeated violations). Because of Michel's conduct, the witnesses at the hearing could not recommend him for community corrections or probationary placement.

[17] Michel argues that “the dual diagnosis program was not aware of whether Michel's medication had appropriately regulated his mood or stabilized his mental health” and that he was “not ready to be allowed to leave the [work release] facility ․” Appellant's Br. p. 9. In light of Michel's pattern of violations, however, we are not persuaded. The trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Conclusion

[18] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Michel for his community corrections violation. Accordingly, we affirm.

[19] Affirmed.

Memorandum Decision by Judge Tavitas

Judges Crone and Bradford concur. Crone, J., and Bradford, J., concur.