Antwoine Kenneth-William Elliott, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Antwoine Kenneth-William Elliott (“Elliott”) appeals the sanction imposed following the revocation of his work release. Elliott argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. Concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Elliott to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence.

Facts

[3] In March 2023, the State charged Elliott with Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator, Level 6 felony identity deception, Level 6 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated, and Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated. The State also filed its notice of intent to file an habitual offender sentence enhancement.

[4] In May 2023, Elliott entered into a plea agreement with the State. In the agreement, Elliott agreed to plead guilty as charged. Elliott and the State agreed to a two-and-a-half (21/212) year sentence served on Madison County work release.

[5] As part of Elliott's plea agreement, he signed a document with terms and conditions of probation. In that document, Elliott agreed to “waive any and all rights concerning search and seizure.” (App. Vol. 2 at 44). Elliott further acknowledged that his “waiver of any and all rights concerning search and seizure above applie[d] to [his] electronic devices[.]” (App. Vol. 2 at 44). Elliott also agreed to the following term:

With respect to my electronic devices, electronic accounts, and any other stored data, I hereby waive any and all rights with respect to self-incrimination and agree to provide my password, passcode, or other biometric data to access my devices or accounts upon the request of my probation officer or upon request of a law enforcement officer.

(App. Vol. 2 at 44).

[6] The trial court held a guilty plea hearing, during which Elliott pleaded guilty pursuant to the plea agreement. The trial court accepted his guilty plea. The trial court merged the Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated conviction into the Level 6 felony operating while intoxicated conviction and entered convictions on the Level 6 felony operating a vehicle as an habitual traffic violator, Level 6 felony identity deception, and Level 6 felony operating while intoxicated charges. The trial court sentenced Elliott, pursuant to the plea agreement, to two-and-one-half (21/212) years for each of his convictions and ordered the sentences to be served concurrently. The trial court also ordered Elliott to serve his sentence on community corrections work release.

[7] Elliott began serving his time on work release in July 2024.¹ In October 2024, the work release program filed a revocation petition. In its petition, the work release program alleged that Elliott had violated the terms and conditions of his work release by: (1) failing to allow access to his electronic device for a search and seizure on October 25, 2024; and (2) failing to pay his program fees, resulting in an arrearage of $2,217.00. The petition further alleged that Elliott had intimidated other work release participants and staff, refused to obey orders from staff, interfered with the staff's performance of their duties, and accrued over two hours of unaccountable time.

[8] In November 2024, the trial court held a hearing. At the hearing, Elliott admitted to refusing to allow work release staff access to his electronic device and failing to pay his program fees in the amount of $2,217.00. Elliott's work release case manager (“the case manager”) testified at the hearing. The case manager testified that she had asked Elliott for his phone's passcode because of an allegation made against him. The case manager further testified that Elliott had refused to give her the passcode. The case manager also testified that, after she had explained to Elliott that he had signed a contract allowing her to go through his electronic devices, he had still refused to give her access. The case manager testified that Elliott had known that if he did not give her his phone's passcode, he would be violating the terms of his work release.

[9] The State argued that Elliott should serve the remaining balance of his sentence at the DOC. Elliott argued that he had been improving on work release, had been working well, had been attending classes at Aspire, and had no positive drug screens. Elliott asked the trial court to allow him to continue his work release. The trial court noted that, when it places a person in a work release program, that person has agreed to or asked to participate in the program. The trial court noted that Elliott had been told that he had to comply with the rules of the program, and Elliott chose not to comply. The trial court ordered Elliott to serve the remaining balance of his sentence at the DOC. The trial court, when sanctioning Elliott, stated that it thought that this was the “most appropriate sanction” for Elliott. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 29).

[10] Elliott now appeals.

Decision

[11] Elliott argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the remainder of his previously suspended sentence. “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). This is because “[b]oth 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.” Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Accordingly, placement in a community corrections program “is a matter of grace and not a right.” Id.

[12] We review a trial court's sanction for the violation of a community corrections placement under the abuse of discretion standard. Puckett v. State, 183 N.E.3d 335, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

[13] Indiana Code § 35-38-2.6-5(a)(4) provides that if a person violates the terms of his placement, the community corrections director may “[r]equest that the court revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the remainder of the person's sentence.”

[14] Our review of the record reveals that the work release program filed a petition to revoke Elliott's placement. At a hearing, Elliott admitted to violating the terms of his work release placement. Specifically, Elliott admitted that he had refused to allow work release staff access to his electronic device and had failed to pay his program fees. Based on Elliott's admission, the trial court ordered Elliott to serve the remainder of his sentence at the DOC. Elliott notes that this was his first violation and that the trial court could have imposed a lesser sanction. But, considering the record before us, the sanction imposed was well within the trial court's discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's order.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Elliott started his work release sentence after he finished serving a sentence at the Department of Correction (“DOC”) in another unrelated case.

Pyle, Judge.

Judges Vaidik and Mathias concur. Vaidik, J., and Mathias, J., concur.