WARNER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] The Allen Superior Court revoked Bradley Warner's community corrections placement after finding that Warner had failed to maintain employment and had failed to complete required community service hours. Warner appeals and argues that the evidence does not support the court's finding that he violated the terms of his placement.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On January 18, 2021, police officers had traffic lanes closed on Lima Road in Fort Wayne while they investigated a fatal traffic accident. Warner, who was operating a vehicle while intoxicated, rear-ended a parked police vehicle at a high rate of speed. The officer seated in the parked vehicle was knocked unconscious. Warner continued driving and almost collided with a second police vehicle. Another officer was forced to run northbound on the roadway to avoid being struck by Warner's car. Warner then continued traveling northeast until his vehicle left the roadway.

[4] Thereafter, on April 29, 2022, Warner pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury, Level 6 felony failure to yield to an emergency vehicle, and four counts of Level 6 felony criminal recklessness. The trial court ordered Warner to serve an aggregate twelve-year sentence, with five years executed in the Department of Correction, three years executed in community corrections, and four years suspended to probation. The court also ordered Warner to successfully complete all recommended rehabilitative services while under the supervision of community corrections.

[5] Warner began serving his community corrections placement on July 22, 2024. The conditions of the placement, which Warner acknowledged, included obtaining and maintaining employment and following all rules of the supervising community corrections agency.

[6] Warner had a job from November 30 to December 21. Warner failed to obtain or maintain employment after that date. On April 29, 2025, Residential Services sanctioned Warner for failing to maintain good behavior and ordered him to complete twenty hours of community service by May 20. Warner failed to complete his required hours. His case manager warned him that his failure to maintain employment and complete community service hours could result in the State filing a petition to revoke his placement.

[7] On May 30, the State filed a petition to revoke Warner's placement because he did not complete his community service hours and he had failed to maintain employment.¹ The trial court held a fact-finding hearing on July 31. Warner's case manager testified that Warner had ample opportunity to complete twenty hours of community services, but he only completed nine. Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 26-27. Warner admitted that he was not employed. Id. at 32-33.

[8] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Warner's residential services community corrections placement and ordered him to serve three years in the Department of Correction. Warner was granted 287 days of jail credit time.

[9] Warner now appeals.

The Trial Court's Order Revoking Warner's Community Corrections Placement is Supported by Sufficient Evidence

[10] Warner claims that the trial court's revocation of his community corrections placement was not supported by sufficient evidence. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove that maintaining employment was a condition of his residential services placement, and, relying on his own testimony, he argues that he completed the required hours of community service.

[11] “Indiana's community corrections program serves the purpose of providing an alternative to imprisonment in a state facility.” Shepard v. State, 84 N.E.3d 1171, 1173 (Ind. 2017) (citing Ind. Code § 11-12-2-1). “The program consists of ‘residential and work release, electronic monitoring, day treatment, or day reporting’ that are operated at the county level.” Id. (quoting Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-2). If the defendant violates the terms of his or her community corrections placement, the trial court may revoke the placement. Livingston v. State, 113 N.E.3d 611, 614 (Ind. 2018) (citing Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5).

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). 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. 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) ․ 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.

Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[12] The State presented the following evidence to prove that Warner was required to obtain and maintain employment. Warner's case manager testified Warner received both the General Rules and Special Conditions of Allen County Community Corrections and the Allen County Community Corrections Residential Services Handbook. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 22. Warner acknowledged that he read and received those documents and agreed to comply with the rules and requirements therein. Id. at 22-23; Ex. Vol. pp. 12, 35. The General Rules Manual requires participants in community corrections programs to “always obtain and maintain approved employment as instructed.” Ex. Vol. p. 7. The Residential Services Handbook lists several specific conditions of the program including that participants must “provide verification of work hours,” allow program personnel to monitor the participant's employment, and notify the participant's case manager if he becomes unemployed. Id. at 33-34. The Handbook also contains an employment policy. Id. at 36. Warner's case manager testified that Warner was required to work as a condition of the community corrections program, and Warner admitted that the purpose of the program is “to find a job.” Tr. Vol. 2, pp. 24, 33. This evidence was sufficient to establish that Warner was required to obtain and maintain employment as a condition of his community corrections placement.

[13] Finally, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Warner violated two terms of his placement. First, Warner admitted that he was not employed. Id. at 32-33. Second, Warner's case manager testified that Warner was required to complete twenty hours of community service but had only completed nine. Id. at 26. Warner's claim that he completed twenty community service hours is merely a request to reweigh the evidence, which our court will not do. Warner's case manager had warned him that violating the terms of his placement could lead to a petition to revoke his placement. Id. at 28.

[14] In sum, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the trial court's order revoking Warner's community corrections placement.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also alleged that Warner violated the terms of his placement because he had failed to pay certain fees. The trial court did not find that Warner's failure to pay fees supported revoking his placement.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.