SANDERSON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jessica K. Sanderson appeals the revocation of her direct placement in community corrections and sanction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 15, 2022, the State charged Sanderson with possession of a narcotic drug and possession of methamphetamine as level 6 felonies, and possession of a controlled substance and theft as class A misdemeanors. The State also filed a notice of intent to file an habitual offender enhancement. On February 17, 2023, the parties entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Sanderson agreed to plead guilty as charged in return for the State agreeing to not file the habitual offender enhancement. The agreement provided for a sentencing cap of two years with placement limited to Madison County Community Corrections or Continuum of Sanctions Program, and Sanderson agreed to undergo a substance abuse evaluation and follow any recommended treatment. She also agreed to obey the law and to abstain from illicit drug use.

[3] On February 24, 2023, the trial court sentenced Sanderson to a term of two years on the Continuum of Sanctions Program. On February 28, 2023, Sanderson completed her “Adult Day Reporting/Continuum of Sanctions intake.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 52. She submitted a positive urine drug screen “for marijuana and methamphetamines and amphetamines” and was ordered to “remain on Adult Day Reporting until further notice.” Id.

[4] On May 31, 2023, Noblesville Police Officer Matthew Lohrey assisted in a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Sanderson. A K9 conducted a free air sniff of Sanderson's vehicle and alerted on the vehicle. Officers located a glass pipe containing a “black char, charrish type residue,” and took Sanderson into custody for possession of paraphernalia and because she had an active “warrant out of Anderson City Court.” Transcript Volume II at 23. Officer Lohrey took Sanderson to the Hamilton County Jail. While at the jail, a plastic bag containing what was later determined to be 6.66 grams of methamphetamine “f[e]ll from [Sanderson's] pants” as she stepped up from a bench when they were moving her from the cell. Id. at 24. Officer Lohrey subsequently went to the jail and watched a surveillance video recording of the incident. The State charged Sanderson with possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor and possession of methamphetamine as a level 4 felony.

[5] On June 7, 2023, Madison County Community Corrections (“MCCC”) filed a notice of termination alleging that it was seeking termination of Sanderson's placement because she committed the new offense of possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor, the new offense of possession of methamphetamine as a level 4 felony, and due to her failure to “meet financial obligations” because she was $173 in arrears to the Madison County Community Justice Center. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 54.

[6] Sanderson was released from jail in June of 2023, and was in the hospital until early or mid-July. On July 25, 2023, Sanderson was charged with theft as a class A misdemeanor and theft as a level 6 felony. On August 10, 2023, MCCC filed an amended notice of termination to include the new theft charges. On August 18, 2023, the trial court held an initial hearing on the violations. Sanderson failed to appear, and the court issued a warrant. Sanderson absconded until she was finally arrested on September 24, 2024.

[7] The trial court held a revocation hearing on December 27, 2024. Sanderson admitted to committing the new criminal offenses of possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor and theft as a class A misdemeanor, and to failing to meet her financial obligations. She denied committing possession of methamphetamine as a level 4 felony or theft as a level 6 felony. The State dismissed the allegation that Sanderson committed theft as a level 6 felony but presented evidence regarding the allegation that she committed the new offense of possession of methamphetamine. The court found that the State met its burden by a preponderance of the evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, and “[b]ased upon the admissions of [Sanderson] and the findings of the Court,” the court revoked Sanderson's placement and ordered her to serve the entirety of her previously suspended two-year sentence in the Department of Correction (the “DOC”). Id. at 15.

Discussion

[8] Sanderson asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the revocation of her direct placement in community corrections. “Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is ‘a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Id. (citations omitted). As with other sufficiency issues, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[9] A probation or community corrections placement revocation proceeding is a two-step process. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. First, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence showed that a violation occurred. Id. Second, the trial court must determine whether the probation violation warrants revocation of probation or some lesser sanction. Id. A single violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to support a revocation. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

[10] Here, the State alleged that Sanderson violated the terms of her direct placement by committing new offenses and failing to meet financial obligations. Sanderson admitted to three violations but challenges the sufficiency of the State's proof as to a fourth violation. To the extent that she challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to the State's allegation that she violated the terms and conditions of her placement by possessing methamphetamine because the State failed to establish an adequate chain of custody for the admission of the methamphetamine evidence, we find that argument waived. Sanderson made no chain of custody objection to the admission of the methamphetamine evidence before the trial court, and she makes no assertion of fundamental error on appeal. See Brabandt v. State, 797 N.E.2d 855, 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (failure to object before the trial court, and thereby properly preserve an issue for appeal, results in waiver); Kelly v. State, 122 N.E.3d 803, 805 (Ind. 2019) (“Fundamental error is an exception to the general rule that a party's failure to object at trial results in a waiver of the issue on appeal.”).

[11] Moreover, as noted above, a single violation of a condition of probation is sufficient to support a revocation. See Pierce, 44 N.E.3d at 755. Thus, even assuming that the methamphetamine evidence was improperly admitted, any such error would have been harmless because the trial court could have properly revoked Sanderson's probation based solely on her admissions. See Stewart v. State, 754 N.E.2d 492, 496 (Ind. 2001) (an error in admitting evidence does not require reversal unless it affects the substantial rights of a party).

[12] Regarding her challenge to the sanction imposed by the trial court, we observe that Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h) provides:

If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.

(2) Extend the person's probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.

(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.

[13] As long as the proper procedures have been followed in conducting a probation revocation hearing, the trial court may order execution of a suspended sentence upon a finding of a violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Goonen v. State, 705 N.E.2d 209, 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[14] As noted above, Sanderson admitted to three violations of the terms and conditions of community corrections, and the trial court found sufficient evidence of a fourth violation. The record reveals that Sanderson has a previous conviction for possession of paraphernalia, specifically a “crack pipe,” in 2018. Transcript Volume II at 41. The court noted that in February 2023, it sentenced Sanderson to two years on the Continuum of Sanctions Program, and that “within three months of this sentence,” law enforcement found Sanderson in possession of a glass pipe containing residue. Id. at 47. She was transported to the Hamilton County Jail, where 6.66 grams of methamphetamine fell out of her pants. Just “two months” later, and shortly after a hospital stay, Sanderson was charged with “yet another crime,” namely, theft. Id. She then failed to appear for an evidentiary hearing, absconded from community corrections, and was arrested in September 2024. We are not persuaded by Sanderson's claims that revocation was unwarranted in light of her health concerns and her uncorroborated allegation that her health issues cannot be adequately treated while incarcerated.¹ As observed by the State, her “health issues evidently did not prevent her from committing new crimes because she committed theft shortly after she was released from the hospital.” Appellee's Brief at 16. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Sanderson to serve the remainder of her previously suspended sentence in the DOC.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[16] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Sanderson testified that she has had an ileostomy for twenty-four years that is “[v]ery difficult to take care of in [the DOC].” Transcript Volume II at 37.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and DeBoer, J., concur.