DIXON v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Rocky Dixon committed seven violations of the terms of his three-year community corrections placement, the trial court revoked his placement and ordered him to serve those three years in the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Dixon appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his placement. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 15, 2024, Dixon pled guilty to Level 5 felony intimidation and Level 6 felony theft. He was sentenced to five years with three years to be executed as a direct placement in a dual diagnosis work release program through Vigo County Community Corrections (VCCC) and the remaining two years suspended to formal probation. In addition to the standard community corrections placement rules and regulations, the trial court ordered Dixon to submit to random drug screens and not consume alcohol or drugs.

[3] Dixon began his work release program on April 10. Between April and August, he committed seven violations of the program's rules:

• April 19: Found in possession of a cigarette in the dormitory.

• July 15: Tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines.

• July 26: Tested positive for methamphetamine.

• July 29: Found in possession of an electronic cigarette containing a THC derivative.

• August 14: Found in possession of a lighter.

• August 23: Tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamines.

• August 27: Fell asleep and failed to participate in his mandatory Relapse Prevention program.

[4] On September 12, the State petitioned to either revoke Dixon's community corrections placement, revoke his probation, or both. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court instructed VCCC to reevaluate Dixon's community corrections placement and set a review hearing for November 4. The reevaluation found that Dixon was not an appropriate candidate for continued participation in community corrections “due to conduct and noncompliance[,]” citing his “multiple rule violations including positive drug screens” while in an intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP) for substance abuse. Appellant's Appendix at 87.

[5] After the review hearing, the court scheduled another evidentiary hearing which eventually occurred in January 2025. There, Dixon admitted the alleged violations and asked that he be given “one more chance” to continue in community corrections. Transcript at 23. Dixon's work release case manager testified that she agreed with the evaluation's conclusion that Dixon should not continue in community corrections.

[6] The following day, the trial court issued its order revoking Dixon's community corrections placement. The court ordered Dixon to serve those three years of his sentence in the DOC, with 424 days credited for time served and the remaining two years still suspended to probation. He appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Dixon argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community corrections placement in the dual diagnosis work release program. We disagree.

[8] Probation and community corrections programs are two alternatives to commitment to the DOC, and a commitment to either alternative is within the sole discretion of the trial court. Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program. Rather, placement in either is a ‘matter of grace’ and a ‘conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1242 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh'g denied) (internal citations omitted).

[9] Thus, our standard of review on an appeal from a revocation of community corrections placement mirrors the standard applicable in our review of probation revocations: abuse of discretion. Treece, 10 N.E.3d at 56. “An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We will consider only the evidence most favorable to the trial court's decision and will not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. McQueen, 862 N.E.2d at 1242. “If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that [Dixon] has violated any terms of community corrections, we will affirm its decision to revoke placement.” Id.

[10] Dixon contends the trial court's revocation was an abuse of discretion because he “took substantial steps towards addressing his substance abuse and behavioral issues” by acknowledging the violations and participating in rehabilitative programs while in jail, such as Moral Recognition Therapy and the Change program. Appellant's Br. at 7. He also claims he should have been permitted to continue in his placement, specifically in the dual diagnosis work release program, because it is “specifically tailored to individuals like [him].” Id. at 8.

[11] Dixon's arguments fail because to successfully revoke his community corrections placement, the State only had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he violated the placement's rules. Treece, 10 N.E.3d at 56. A single violation of community corrections rules is sufficient for revocation, and Dixon admitted to committing several. Id. at 60. While we acknowledge Dixon's admissions and participation in rehabilitative programming, the trial court was not required to balance aggravating or mitigating circumstances when considering revocation of Dixon's placement. Id. at 59-60. Dixon's argument that we consider these matters is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, and we will not do so. Id. (affirming revocation of placement despite defendant's participation in rehabilitative programs).

[12] In short, Dixon admitted to committing seven violations within the first four and a half months of the program, four of which were also violations of the law. While he completed his IOP, he did so while continuously testing positive for methamphetamine. Simply because Dixon believes community corrections is better suited to his needs does not mean the trial court abused its discretion in ordering otherwise. Given his numerous and serious violations, the trial court was well within its discretion to revoke Dixon's community corrections placement.

Conclusion

[13] We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Dixon's placement in community corrections. Therefore, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

DeBoer, Judge.

Altice, C.J., and Pyle, J., concur.