NICHOLS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Ernest Nichols, Jr., appeals following the revocation of his community corrections placement. He argues the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his placement and ordered him to serve the balance of his three-year sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (“IDOC”). We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 26, 2024, Nichols pled guilty to Level 5 felony battery with bodily injury to a public safety officer.¹ The same day, the trial court imposed a three-year sentence that the court suspended to placement in community corrections. As part of his placement, Nichols was prohibited from using illegal substances and failing to “abide by a schedule approved by Community Corrections Staff” that “specifically set[ ] forth the times [he] may be absent from [his] home and where [he] will be during those absences.” (App. Vol. II at 23.)

[3] On August 20, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Nichols's community corrections placement because he allegedly used methamphetamine on August 13, 2024, and allegedly travelled to unapproved locations on August 8, 9, and 19, 2024. The trial court held a hearing on the revocation petition on October 16, 2024. At the hearing, Nichols admitted he used methamphetamine and was in an unapproved location, specifically Walmart, on August 19, 2024.

[4] The State then presented evidence of Nichols traveling to other unapproved locations on other days alleged based on GPS records and testimony. Nichols testified he did not know the location monitoring used by community corrections was “that strict” (id. at 18), and that he stopped at a gas station off the approved route on August 19, 2024, because the gas “is cheaper there than it is anywhere else on the route.” (Id. at 19.) He also admitted stopping at an apartment complex that was not on his approved route on August 19, 2024, because he wanted to talk to his daughter. At the end of the hearing, the trial court determined Nichols violated his community corrections placement by using methamphetamine and traveling to unapproved locations on August 8, 9, and 19, 2024, and revoked his community corrections placement. The trial court ordered Nichols to serve the balance of his three-year sentence in the IDOC.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Nichols argues the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community corrections placement. We review an appeal from the revocation of a community corrections placement under the same standard of review as a revocation of probation. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Trial courts have discretion to set the conditions of probation and “to revoke probation if the conditions are violated.” Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). Revocation of probation is a two-step process: first, whether a violation occurred; and second, what sanction to impose for any violation. Id. Following a violation, a trial court may continue the placement, change the placement, or “revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the remainder of the person's sentence.” Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5.

[6] It is well-settled that “[p]roof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 NE.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. Here, Nichols admitted using methamphetamine and being at Walmart when he was not to be there. We therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Nichols's community corrections placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his three-year sentence in the IDOC.² See Overstreet v. State, 136 N.E.3d 260, 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (trial court did not abuse its discretion when, based on several probation violations, it revoked Overstreet's probation and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence incarcerated), trans. denied.

Conclusion

[7] The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Nichols's community corrections placement and ordered him to serve his three-year sentence in the IDOC. Accordingly, we affirm.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(g)(5).

2.   Nichols also argues State presented insufficient evidence to prove he was in a number of other unapproved locations. Nichols contends he did not know those locations were not approved and that some of them were necessary, such as getting gas on the way to an appointment. Nichols's arguments are invitations for us to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do. See Brown v. State, 162 N.E.3d 1179, 1182 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (in a case involving the sufficiency of the evidence to support a probation revocation, we will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses). The State presented GPS evidence Nichols was in several unapproved locations in violation of his community corrections placement rules, and such evidence is sufficient.

May, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and Scheele, J., concur.