Deondre Dayshun Todd, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Deondre Dayshun Todd appeals the trial court's revocation of his community corrections placement, arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the determination a violation occurred and failed to follow the appropriate procedures to impose the sanction of revocation. Because we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's findings and procedure, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2021, Todd pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to three years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”), with all time suspended to probation. In 2023, the State filed a petition to revoke his probation. After Todd admitted to a probation violation, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to three years in the Lake County Jail to be served in a community corrections secure facility work release program. When Todd entered the program, he received a handbook with the program rules, including items he could not have on premises. Contraband items included cigarettes, drugs, alcohol, and lighters.

[3] On March 1, 2024, Todd was returning from work when he attempted to bring a pre-rolled CBD cigarette into the facility. Todd admitted the violation in an internal administrative hearing. On April 21, Correctional Officer (“CO”) Andrew Sherwood was doing rounds at night when he smelled smoke coming from a resident bunk room. CO Sherwood entered the room and saw Todd in his bunk appearing to smoke. Although it was dark, the officer could see “the glow of the object” coming from Todd's bunk. Tr. Vol. 2 at 7. CO Sherwood asked Todd to step into the hall. Todd “appeared to be glossy-eyed and seemingly under the influence at this time.” Id. at 8. And he “smelled of the same smoke that was coming out of the room.” Id. at 16. The CO then searched Todd's bunk and found a lighter and signs of smoking, including “ash, burnt spots, and other small papers.” Id. at 7. Todd appeared to ingest an object in his possession, so he was taken to the hospital.

[4] Community corrections case manager Dolores Walker-Cook filed a petition to expel Todd from the program, alleging Todd (1) attempted to bring into the facility a hand-rolled cigarette containing an unknown, green leafy substance; (2) possessed unknown contraband, a lighter, and remnants of burnt paper and ashes; and (3) was seen smoking an unknown substance. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 36. Walker-Cook also alleged Todd refused a direct order by staff and was in arrears $850.

[5] The trial court held a hearing on the petition on July 18, 2024, at which CO Sherwood, Walker-Cook, and Todd testified. After hearing arguments from the State and defense counsel, the trial court found the State proved all but the allegation Todd refused a direct order. The trial court concluded, “So based on that, I'm going to show that the allegations have been proven, and the Petition to Expel is granted. Are the parties ready to proceed with sentencing?” Tr. Vol. 2 at 50. The trial court then gave both parties an opportunity to present evidence and argument about the appropriate sanction for Todd's violation. Defense counsel and Todd declined; the State argued only for the original sentence of three years in the DOC. The trial court then stated, “I'm going to show then after consideration of the evidence and argument, the Defendant is sentenced to three years in the [DOC].” Id. at 51.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Todd's community corrections placement.

[6] The standard of review for revocation of a community corrections placement is the same as for a probation revocation. Bennett v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019). We review a trial court's decision that a violation occurred for abuse of discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[7] Todd first argues there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding he violated the terms of his community corrections placement. A probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 551 (Ind. 1999). In reviewing a community corrections placement revocation, we consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that the defendant violated any terms of the community corrections placement, we will affirm the court's decision to revoke the placement. Id.

[8] Here, the State presented evidence Todd agreed to certain program rules when entering the community corrections placement, including not to bring cigarettes, drugs, or lighters into the facility. The testimony of CO Sherwood and Walker-Cook established Todd attempted to bring in a CBD cigarette, possessed contraband, and smoked in his bunk. Todd's appellate arguments that (1) he denied violating any rules at the hearing, (2) other residents could have been smoking or placed the contraband in his bunk, and (3) CO Sherwood might have been mistaken about the smoker's identity, are merely requests to reweigh evidence, which we cannot do. See id. There was substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's finding Todd violated the terms of his community corrections placement.

[9] Todd also contends the trial court failed to follow the proper procedures to revoke his community corrections placement. Both probation and community corrections programs are alternatives to commitment to the DOC and the decision to place a defendant in an alternative program is in the trial court's sole discretion. Id. at 549. Placement in either program is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Id. (citations omitted). While probationers are not entitled to the full array of constitutional rights afforded defendants at trial, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by a community corrections placement. Id. Under our due process jurisprudence, “a defendant in a community corrections program is entitled to representation by counsel, written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the opposing evidence, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in a neutral hearing before the trial court.” Id. at 550.

[10] Probation or community corrections revocation is a two-step process. Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). First, the trial court makes a factual determination whether a violation of a condition of placement occurred. Id. If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine whether the violation warrants revocation. Id. To protect a probationer's due process rights, Indiana requires “an evidentiary hearing be held on the revocation” and provides for “confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses by the probationer.” Id.; see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3 (2015). If a probationer admits to an alleged violation, the evidentiary hearing to establish a violation is unnecessary; but in that case, the trial court must still allow a probationer to offer mitigating evidence suggesting the violation does not warrant revocation. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640.

[11] Here, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing on the allegations and determined Todd violated the conditions of his placement, stating: “I'm going to show that the allegations have been proven, and the Petition to Expel is granted.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 50. Todd contends the trial court did not adhere to the two-step revocation process because this statement shows “the court did not engage in any discussion reflecting a determination that the alleged violation warranted revocation.” Appellant's Br. at 9.

[12] Todd points to no authority to support his assertion a trial court must reflect upon and discuss on the record whether a violation warranted revocation. Of course, “the very notion that violation of a probationary term will result in revocation no matter the reason is constitutionally suspect.” Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 641. But the trial court did not impose the kind of “strict compliance” for Todd's violation that he seems to suggest it did. Here, the trial court held the requisite evidentiary hearing, heard Todd's testimony, found a violation, and then provided the parties with an opportunity to present evidence and arguments on the appropriate sanction. This was sufficient to meet the requirements of due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Todd's community corrections placement under the procedures used here.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Todd's community corrections placement and ordering him to serve his three-year sentence in the DOC.

[14] Affirmed.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Judges Mathias and Brown concur. Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.