Samantha K. Pearson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Samantha K. Pearson appeals the trial court's order revoking her community corrections placement. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 11, 2024, the State charged Pearson with: Count I, unlawful carrying of a handgun as a level 5 felony; Count II, possession of methamphetamine as a level 5 felony; Count III, unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony; Count IV, possession of marijuana as a class B misdemeanor; Count V, possession of paraphernalia as a class C misdemeanor; and Count VI, resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor.

[3] On December 4, 2024, the State and Pearson filed a “Recommendation of Plea” indicating that Pearson intended to enter a plea of guilty to Counts I, II, and III, and in exchange the State would recommend that Pearson be sentenced “[a]s to Counts I and II” to the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) “for a period of four years, one year executed, followed by three years on supervised probation” and that Pearson may argue for “In Home Detention for some or all of the executed portion of the sentence.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 69. The State also recommended that Pearson be sentenced as to Count III to the DOC for a “period of 24 months, 12 months executed, followed by 12 months on supervised probation” and that Pearson “may argue for In Home Detention for some or all of the executed portion of the sentence.” Id. It also indicated that the sentences for Counts I, II, and III would be served concurrently. The State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts.

[4] On December 31, 2024, the court entered a sentencing order in which it accepted Pearson's guilty plea. The court sentenced Pearson for Counts I and II to the DOC for four years with one year executed on Howard County In-Home Detention and three years suspended to supervised probation. The court sentenced Pearson on Count III to two years with one year executed on Howard County In-Home Detention and one year suspended to supervised probation. It ordered the sentences to be served concurrently and dismissed the remaining counts.

[5] On February 12, 2025, Probation Officer Marine Loveless filed a “NonCompliance with Howard County Community Corrections Home Detention Division” alleging that Pearson: was charged on February 10, 2025, with unlawful possession of a syringe, possession of a narcotic drug, and maintaining a common nuisance as level 6 felonies under cause number 34D01-2502-F6-375 (“Cause No. 375”); submitted to a drug screen on February 7, 2025, which “showed positive for Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, MDMA, Morphine, Fentanyl and Heroin”; owed $884 to Howard County Community Corrections; and, on January 30, 2025, was found to be in communication with Oscar Hollingsworth, a convicted felon with two pending criminal felony charges whom Pearson had been “told numerous times to cease contact with.” Id. at 93-95 (capitalization omitted). Probation Officer Loveless also alleged that Pearson had Kaniya Ford, a convicted felon, in her home on February 6, 2025, and “FO Kaleb Roberson” located a syringe without a cap found inside a wallet and a clear baggie with a brown like substance that tested positive for fentanyl. Id. at 95.

[6] On March 19, 2025, the court held a hearing. Probation Officer Loveless testified that a home visit resulted in the discovery of a syringe and a clear baggie containing a substance that tested positive for fentanyl and criminal charges were filed against Pearson in Cause No. 375. She testified that Pearson submitted to a random drug screen on February 7th which “showed positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, morphine, fentanyl and heroin” and she did not have prescriptions for any of the drugs. Transcript Volume II at 13. She testified that Pearson “was behind $884.00” in fee obligations to community corrections. Id. at 14. She stated that one part of home regulations is to have no contact with convicted felons, Pearson was warned about this provision on February 5th, and Ford was found to be in the residence with Pearson the next day. She testified that although Pearson was warned about having contact with Hollingsworth, a convicted felon who had pending felony cases against him, she married Hollingsworth while she was serving “a different community corrections case in December,” and one of the allegations was that she continued to have contact with him “during this tenure on in home detention.” Id. at 15.

[7] Pearson testified, “I smoked a bubble that had everything in it. But the needle and heroin they found was not around me. It was in the room that [Ford] was. They charged me with it because I lived at the home.” Id. at 17. She acknowledged that she owed $884 to community corrections. She indicated that she married Hollingsworth on December 22, 2024. She testified that Ford was “living with [her] dad at the time,” Ford “was in jail when I got approved to go there,” she “didn't know [Ford] was coming back,” and she told her father “several times to make her leave.” Id. at 18. She indicated that the residence where she was staying was her father's home and he decides “who comes and goes.” Id. She also testified, “I know I need rehab.” Id. at 19.

[8] On cross-examination, Pearson admitted that she tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, morphine, fentanyl, and heroin, and that she owed $884 to community corrections. She acknowledged that she was warned in advance of the February 6th visit that Ford should not be in the home. When asked if she was warned not to have contact with Hollingsworth, she answered that she was “in contact with him one time,” he “was blowing [her] phone up, wanting to commit suicide,” that was the only time she talked to him, she “told the officer that [she] did get in contact with him,” and she had not contacted him after that incident. Id. at 20. On rebuttal, Probation Officer Loveless testified that Pearson “had been told multiple times not to have contact with convicted felons.” Id. at 21.

[9] The court stated:

I would find that the state has unquestionably proved, unquestionably in the sense that even Ms. Pearson has admitted to the same. That[ ] she's violated terms of community corrections in home detention. Specifically, that being charged with new offenses without notifying probation. Or her officer. Home Detention officer. Also, that the drug screen on February 7, she tested positive for a number of different controlled and illegal substances. That alone, I'm not even going to make a ruling about the money that's owed. I think that's not an issue in the sense that it's undisputed. However, I'm not, I don't like to make a violation based on simply on the payment or not payment of money. But, it's the drug usage, just appears to be, frankly rampant and being charged with new offenses, obviously, I just don't see that her being able to go back to community corrections in home detention and be able to successfully complete that. She probable [sic] does need substance abuse treatment. I agree. She needs rehab, and I hope that she uses, she talked about maybe some resources that she might have available when she's out. But I'm going to find that she should finish the rest of her sentence in this matter ․ I just don't see community corrections being the answer, or probation being the answer.

Id. at 22-23.

[10] On March 21, 2025, the court entered a Dispositional Order which ordered Pearson to serve “the balance of the home detention sentence” in the DOC. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 119. The court observed certain credit time left “a balance of 291 credit days (218 actual days) to be served after March 19, 2025,” and ordered that the “disposition must be served consecutively to sentences in causes 34D03-2407-CM-1796” and Cause No. 375. Id. It also stated that, “[u]pon her release from jail, [Pearson] must report to probation to complete her sentence in this cause.” Id. at 119-120.

Discussion

[11] Pearson argues there was no testimony that the items found in her home belonged to her and that she testified that “the needle and heroin they found was not around me” and “[t]hey charged me with it because I lived at the home.” Appellant's Brief at 10 (quoting Transcript Volume II at 17). She asserts that she had contact with Hollingsworth because “she called him due to his wanting to commit suicide.” Id. She contends that her “sentence was inappropriate” in light of what she characterizes as technical violations. Id. at 11.

[12] 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), reh'g denied. Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the DOC and both are at the sole discretion of the trial court. Id. Placement on probation or in a community corrections program is a matter of grace and not a right. Id.; see State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (“The similarities between the two programs have led to common treatment in appellate review of a trial court's decision to revoke either․”). Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. The State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence, we will consider all the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses, and if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the court's conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation. Id. “Proof of a single violation of the conditions of a defendant's probation is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke probation.” Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997).

[13] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a trial court's sentencing decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). The Court explained that, “[o]nce a trial court has exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed” and that, “[i]f this discretion were not afforded to trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to future defendants.” Id. An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances. Id.

[14] The record reveals that Pearson pled guilty in December 2024 to unlawful carrying of a handgun and possession of methamphetamine as level 5 felonies and unlawful possession of a syringe as a level 6 felony. Less than two months after being sentenced, a home visit resulted in the discovery of a syringe and a baggie containing fentanyl resulting in criminal charges in Cause No. 375. Further, Pearson submitted to a random drug screen on February 7, 2025, which “showed positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, morphine, fentanyl and heroin.” Transcript Volume II at 13. We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Pearson's placement or in issuing its sanction.

[15] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's order.

[16] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Judges Felix and Scheele concur. Felix, J., and Scheele, J., concur.