RIDDLE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] James Leonard Riddle, Jr., appeals the trial court's revocation of his placement in community corrections. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 21, 2021, the State charged Riddle with dealing in cocaine as a level 4 felony, possession of cocaine and dealing in marijuana as level 6 felonies, driving while suspended as a class A misdemeanor, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor, dealing in cocaine as a level 3 felony, and possession of cocaine and dealing in marijuana as level 5 felonies. On August 25, 2022, Riddle and the State entered into a plea agreement pursuant to which Riddle pled guilty to possession of cocaine and dealing in marijuana as level 5 felonies in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. The agreement provided that Riddle would be sentenced to consecutive four-year terms, with all eight years suspended minus credit for time served, and formal reporting probation for two years. On September 29, 2022, the court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Riddle accordingly.

[3] On April 13, 2023, the State filed a notice of probation violation. The State filed amended notices on August 15 and October 20, 2023. The court held a hearing on December 11, 2023, and Riddle admitted to the violations. The court revoked Riddle's suspended sentence and ordered his direct placement to work release and provided that once he completed a drug treatment program through community corrections, he could seek modification of his sentence. The State filed a second petition to revoke on March 15, 2024, Riddle admitted to the violation, and the court sanctioned Riddle with ninety days in jail before allowing him to return to work release.¹

[4] On August 1, 2024, the State filed a third petition to revoke alleging that Riddle had violated the terms and conditions of work release because he was at unauthorized locations on July 16th, 17th, 18th, and 31, 2024, that he had a hand rolled cigarette on July 23, 2024, and that he threw a comb at a control officer on July 30, 2024. On November 19, 2024, the court held an evidentiary hearing. Among other exhibits, the State moved to admit State's Exhibit's 2 and 4. Exhibits 2 and 4 were offered for admission during the testimony of Riddle's work release manager, Crystal Brooks. Both exhibits consisted of an incident report, screening report, discipline hearing, Riddle's schedule for the week, his “clock in and outs, his GPS stops, his GPS points [from] an ariel view,” and his job search proof. Transcript Volume II at 19-20, 32-33. State's Exhibit 2 concerned Riddle's alleged violations on July 16, 2024, and State's Exhibit 4 concerned his alleged violations on July 18, 2024. Riddle objected to the admission of Exhibits 2 and 4 on the grounds that they contained hearsay, violated his confrontation rights, and that Brooks did not have personal knowledge of the violations documented therein.² The court overruled his objections and admitted the exhibits.

[5] Brooks testified that when work release residents are released for job searches, they are only permitted to go to places that would hire them, and they are “not allowed to go to the library or Work One or any residences.” Id. at 12.³ She explained that the residents are specifically told they are not allowed to go to the library. Id. at 52. She stated that residents are required to submit documentation of everywhere they went, including providing customer receipts. Id. at 17. Brooks testified that it was her normal practice to review incident reports or “write-ups” prepared by other work release officers and then “administer the appropriate documentation and sanction.” Id. at 10, 12. She stated that, after she receives an incident report and supporting documents, she gives it to the “Control supervisor” who would ask the defendant “if he wanted to have somebody, a witness, or if he wanted to plead guilty or not guilty” and then the case is given to a hearing officer who conducts a hearing and determines the sanction. Id. at 18.

[6] Brooks testified that Riddle was required to submit a weekly schedule to her, that he was required to get documented “proof of everywhere” he goes, and every location had to be first approved by community corrections. Id. at 15-16. She testified that, according to the incident reports, on July 16, 2024, Riddle spent forty-five minutes in a parking lot outside of the Harrison Township Trustee's office, but he provided no documentation supporting why he was there. She stated that on July 17, 2024, Riddle spent time at the library when he had recevied approval to be at the BMV, he did not submit documentation of a trip to the BMV, and he spent almost forty minutes at a residence not near any businesses he was supposed to have visited for his job search after the BMV. Brooks further testified that on July 18, 2024, Riddle was once again at the library and at a residence that was not near any businesses listed on his job proof form.

[7] The court concluded that the State proved that Riddle violated the terms and conditions of work release by being at unauthorized locations on July 16th, 17th, and 18th. Following a sanctions hearing on December 18, 2024, the court revoked six years of Riddle's previously suspended eight-year sentence, gave him 1,008 days of credit time, and ordered that he be released to work release after completing his six-year sentence in the Department of Correction (the “DOC”).

Discussion

[8] Riddle first asserts that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted, over his objection, certain hearsay evidence during the revocation proceedings. Specifically, he challenges the court's admission of State's Exhibits 2 and 4 which consisted of documents relating to his work release violations on July 16th and July 18th.

[9] For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). Accordingly, the Indiana Rules of Evidence in general and the rules against hearsay in particular do not apply in community corrections placement revocation hearings. See id. at 550-551; see also Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c) (providing that the rules do not apply in proceedings relating to sentencing, probation, or parole). In probation and community corrections placement revocation hearings, therefore, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. This includes reliable hearsay. Id. The absence of strict evidentiary rules places particular importance on the fact-finding role of judges in assessing the weight, sufficiency, and reliability of proffered evidence. Id. This assessment, then, carries with it a special level of judicial responsibility and is subject to appellate review. Id.

[10] Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that Exhibits 2 and 4 bore substantial indicia of reliability to support their admission into evidence. Brooks testified that it was her normal practice to review incident reports or “write-ups” prepared by other work release officers and then “administer the appropriate documentation and sanction.” Transcript Volume II at 10, 12. She stated that, after she receives an incident report and supporting documents, she gives it to the “Control supervisor” who would ask the defendant “if he wanted to have somebody, a witness, or if he wanted to plead guilty or not guilty,” and then the case is given to a hearing officer who conducts a hearing and determines the sanction. Id. at 18. The record reveals that Riddle admitted to the documented violations and signed the form from the hearing officer indicating that he pled guilty to the violations. Brook's detailed testimony as to the standard process of how violations and incident reports are documented coupled with Riddle's signature on the form admitting to being at unapproved locations in violation of work release's rules provide sufficient indicia of reliability to support the trial court's admission of the exhibits. We find no abuse of discretion.

[11] Riddle next argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his placement. “Both 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.” Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 549. Because of similarities between community corrections and probation, 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). That is, a revocation of community corrections placement hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). We will consider all the evidence most favorable to the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of community corrections, we will affirm its decision to revoke placement. Id. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a revocation. Beeler v. State, 959 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied.

[12] The trial court found sufficient evidence that Riddle committed three violations of the terms and conditions of work release.⁴ Specifically, the State presented evidence that Riddle was at an unauthorized location on July 16th (parking lot), July 17th (library), and July 18th (library and a residence). Riddle testified and acknowledged that, during the work release internal hearing process, he admitted to the allegations that he was at those unauthorized locations. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's revocation of Riddle's placement in work release.

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

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As noted by the State, “[t]his resolution was part of a plea agreement that resolved new criminal charges.” Appellee's Brief at 7 n.2.

2.   Riddle did not object to the admission of State's Exhibit 3, which contained documents relating to his alleged violations on July 17, 2024.

3.   Work One is “[w]here they can help them like find jobs and do resumes and things like that.” Transcript Volume II at 12. Residents are not allowed to use this service but are instead told to go “face to face” and inquire about “hiring and stuff.” Id.

4.   The court found that the State “failed to carry” its burden of proof as to three additional alleged violations. Transcript Volume II at 68.

Brown, Judge.

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