WARD v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Tobias R. Ward appeals the revocation of his community-corrections placement. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In June 2022, Ward pled guilty to Level 5 felony robbery and was sentenced to four years suspended to probation. About a month later, the State petitioned to revoke his probation for failing to report to probation and not completing an intake. Ward admitted violating his probation, and in February 2023 the trial court ordered him to serve four years on Allen County Community Corrections Residential Services with electronic monitoring. The program rules stated that participants were not allowed to “loiter outside of Allen County Community Corrections” and upon returning “must immediately enter the facility.” Ex. 3, p. 33. Participants were also prohibited from providing “false statements to any personnel.” Id.

[3] In July 2024, Allen County Community Corrections petitioned to revoke Ward's placement in the Residential Services program alleging that he (1) provided a falsified timecard to verify his employment and (2) loitered outside his place of employment and the Residential Services facility. At the hearing, Ward's case manager, Lucas Stonebraker, testified that on July 19, Ward checked out of Residential Services at 5:13 a.m. but didn't leave for work until 5:30 a.m. He arrived at work at 5:38 a.m. but stayed outside in the rear parking lot until 6:26 a.m. He then moved to the front parking lot and called Community Corrections to say that he was at work and had his timecard to prove it. He left work at 6:42 a.m. and arrived at Residential Services at 6:46 a.m. Ward stayed in the Residential Services parking lot until 7:21 a.m. before checking into the facility. When Stonebraker got on shift, Ward gave him a timecard that showed he worked from 3:57 a.m. to 6:37 a.m. Upon noticing that Ward didn't leave Residential Services until 5:13 a.m. but his timecard showed that he was at work at 3:57 a.m., Stonebraker called Ward's employer, who said that Ward didn't work on July 19.

[4] Ward testified that his timecard wasn't accurate, that he let his car warm up before leaving Residential Services, and that upon returning to Residential Services he had to wait in line to check in. The trial court found the State had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Ward had made false statements and loitered in violation of the program rules and ordered him to serve four years (minus 577 days of credit time) in prison.

[5] Ward now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Ward contends the trial court erred in revoking his community-corrections placement. We treat a petition to revoke a community-corrections placement the same as a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'g denied. The State need only prove an alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 551. We consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the court's finding of a violation. Id.

[7] Ward doesn't dispute that Stonebraker's testimony establishes that he made false statements and loitered. Instead, he argues “that a review of the evidence should have resulted in a different conclusion, specifically that he had not violated the terms of the program and should have had the opportunity to return to Community Corrections[.]” Appellant's Br. p. 14. In other words, Ward says we should believe his testimony, not Stonebraker's. This, however, is a clear request for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we don't do. We therefore affirm the trial court.

[8] Affirmed.

Vaidik, Judge.

Bailey, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.