BOWENS v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Convicted of two counts of child molesting, William Bowens served part of his 16-year sentence in prison before being placed on home detention. The trial court, however, soon revoked Bowens's home detention placement after finding he violated the conditions thereof by viewing or accessing the internet without prior approval. Bowens appeals the revocation, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he viewed or accessed the internet. Because the evidence shows that Bowens used a web browser on his smartphone to visit websites while the conditions of home detention were in effect, we affirm.

Facts

[2] In 2018, when Bowens was roughly 43 years old, he began molesting his 10- and 8-year-old adopted sisters on a nightly basis. The recurring molestations lasted for approximately two years, and the sisters reported them to police a few years after that. The State charged Bowens with 11 felonies, and pursuant to a plea agreement, Bowens pleaded guilty to two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. The trial court then sentenced Bowens to a total of 16 years, with 2 years in the Department of Correction (DOC), 6 years on home detention through Community Corrections, 6 years suspended to probation, and 2 years simply suspended.

[3] By August 2024, Bowens was serving the home detention portion of his sentence. The conditions of that Community Corrections placement prohibited him from leaving his residence without authorization. They also provided, among other things:

You shall not view or access the internet or any other on-line service through use of any electronic device at any location (including your place of employment) without prior approval from the Court and Community Corrections. This includes any internet service provider, social media, bulletin board system, email system or any other public or private computer network.

Exhs. Vol. I, pp. 12, 14.

[4] On August 12, the State filed a notice of Community Corrections violation, alleging Bowens had left his residence without authorization on 10 occasions. Bowens admitted the allegations, and the trial court continued his placement on home detention. But the court warned Bowens that further violations may result in revocation of the placement.

[5] On November 19, the State filed another notice of Community Corrections violation, alleging Bowens had viewed or accessed the internet without approval. Not long thereafter, the State filed notice that Bowens's alleged Community Corrections violation was also a violation of his probation. Bowens denied the underlying allegations, and the trial court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing.

[6] Among other evidence presented at the hearing, the State offered two copies of Bowens's Community Corrections conditions, one of which Bowens had signed on November 8. The State also offered the testimony of Logan Smith, Bowens's Community Corrections case manager. Smith testified that Bowens possessed a smartphone during a visit to Smith's office on November 19. According to Smith, he asked to search Bowens's phone, and before Bowens handed it over, he swiped an image on the screen with “large text and colors.” Tr. Vol. II, p. 68. During the ensuing search of the phone, Smith found a Google Chrome browser application that, when opened, appeared identical to the image Bowens had swiped. Smith also searched the phone's internet history and found “recent website visits,” which had occurred while Bowens was subject to the conditions of his Community Corrections placement. Id. at 61.

[7] Bowens testified in his defense at the hearing, explaining that the internet activity on his smartphone was from before his Community Corrections conditions were in effect. Specifically, Bowens asserted that he opened the Google Chrome browser application in 2022 to view a website featuring photographs from his mother's wedding. Although the application was never closed, Bowens claimed he had not viewed it since. Bowens also denied that he swiped anything closed before handing his phone to Smith on November 19.

[8] Bowens also presented the testimony of Lou Harris, an employee at the community home where Bowens was residing during his home detention. Harris testified that he helped Bowens reactivate his smartphone on November 11, and they made sure it did not have a data plan. Harris also testified that Bowens's phone did not have an internet browser on it at that time. Harris therefore concluded that any internet activity on Bowens's phone must have occurred after November 11.

[9] The trial court found that Bowens had violated the conditions of both his Community Corrections placement and his probation by viewing or accessing the internet without approval. The court therefore revoked Bowens's entire 6-year placement in Community Corrections as well as roughly 3 years of his probation. The court also ordered that Bowens serve these 9 years in DOC.

[10] Bowens appeals, arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to prove he viewed or accessed the internet on his smartphone.

Discussion and Decision

[11] A defendant's placement on probation or in a community corrections program is a matter of grace, not a right. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Accordingly, we review a trial court's determination that a defendant violated the conditions of either program under an abuse of discretion standard. Bennett v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019). “[W]e consider only the evidence most favorable to the judgment without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of the witnesses.” Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). And we will affirm “if there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's decision that a defendant has violated any [program] terms.” Id.

[12] Here, the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment shows that, when Harris helped Bowens reactivate his smartphone on November 11, the phone did not have an internet browser on it. But when Smith searched Bowens's phone on November 19, it had a Google Chrome browser application installed. Moreover, this application was open, and the phone's internet history showed website visits that had occurred while the Community Corrections conditions were in effect. This is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's finding that Bowens viewed or accessed the internet.

[13] Bowens argues that opening the Google Chrome browser application on his smartphone does not equate to viewing or accessing the internet. But he ignores Smith's testimony that the phone's internet history showed website visits. Bowens also claims the evidence does not prove he was the one who visited the websites in his phone's internet history. However, it can be reasonably inferred that Bowens was the one using the internet on his own phone, especially considering the evidence that Bowens furtively swiped closed the Google Chrome browser when Smith asked to search Bowens's phone.

[14] Ultimately, Bowens's contentions amount to a request to review the evidence, which is not our role. Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639. Finding sufficient evidence that Bowens violated the conditions of his Community Corrections placement by viewing or accessing the internet without approval, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Weissmann, Judge.

Bradford, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.