BENNETT v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Maurice Bennett appeals the trial court's decision to revoke his community corrections placement and probation after he repeatedly violated the terms of both. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2024, the State charged Bennett with Level 3 felony burglary, Level 3 felony criminal confinement, Level 5 felony intimidation, Level 6 felony strangulation, Level 6 felony kidnapping, and Class A misdemeanor domestic battery. Bennett pled guilty to burglary and domestic battery, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges, and the trial court imposed an aggregate ten-year sentence, with six years to be served on community corrections and four years suspended, two of which were to be on active probation.

[3] In December 2024, shortly after Bennett began serving the community corrections portion of his sentence, a community corrections officer found a form of synthetic marijuana, commonly known as K2 or spice, in Bennett's dorm. Then, in January 2025, Bennett became combative with community corrections staff who were trying to render medical assistance to him for what they suspected to be a drug overdose. Community corrections and the probation department filed notices with the trial court alleging that Bennett's actions constituted violations of the terms of his community corrections placement and probation.¹

[4] At a hearing in March, Bennett admitted to the violations and explained that he had applied to an “intensive inpatient substance abuse treatment program[.]” Transcript at 67. He asked that he be put on home detention while waiting to be admitted in that program because he “has a colostomy bag” and was expecting to have “reversal surgery” that would require “twenty-four[-]hour nursing care [that] is not available at” community corrections. Id. at 68. The court told Bennett he was not a candidate for home detention and ordered him back to the community corrections residential facility.

[5] In early April, Bennett got into a fight with another community corrections resident. Community corrections and probation filed second violation notices, and Bennett admitted at a hearing later that month that the fight occurred and was a violation of the conditions of his placement and probation. He explained that the other resident physically attacked him and he needed to defend himself to prevent damage to the area around his colostomy bag. The trial court gave some credit to Bennett's explanation for his actions, reasoning, “I mean[,] if somebody is coming at him, whether it's [community corrections’] policy or not, I think [a] normal reaction is going to be to fight back[.]” Id. at 95. Accordingly, the court sent Bennett back to community corrections but made clear that if there was another violation, he would likely be ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence at the Department of Correction (the DOC).

[6] In May, Bennett tested positive for alcohol when he took a routine breathalyzer test while returning to the community corrections facility. Community corrections and probation filed third violation notices based on the positive alcohol test. At a contested hearing in June, the trial court found that Bennett violated the terms of community corrections and probation and ordered him to serve 1,300 days of his remaining community corrections placement, plus three years of the previously suspended portion of his sentence, in the DOC. Bennett now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Community corrections is “a program consisting of residential centers and work release, home detention, or electronic monitoring[.]” Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-2. “Placement in community corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court[.]” Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). A community corrections placement is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). The same standard of grace applies to probation, and once the trial court extends such grace, it has considerable leeway in deciding how to proceed. See State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (“The similarities between [community corrections and probation] have led to common treatment in appellate review of a trial court's decision to revoke either[.]”).

[8] When a defendant “violates the terms of [his community corrections] placement, the community corrections director may ․ [r]equest that the court revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or [the DOC] for the remainder of the person's sentence.” I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5(a)(4). Similarly, when a defendant who has been ordered to serve a portion of a suspended sentence on probation violates the terms of his probation, the court may, among other things, “[o]rder execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended[.]” I.C. § 35-38-2-3(h)(3). We review a court's decision to revoke community corrections or probation for an abuse of discretion, which occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)).

[9] Here, Bennett does not dispute that he violated the conditions of community corrections and probation numerous times. He further concedes that the trial court “[c]ertainly ․ showed [him] patience and grace” after his first two sets of violations. Appellant's Brief at 17. Bennett's only argument as to why the court abused its discretion in sending him to the DOC after the third violation is that he supposedly has a “chance of reversal surgery” that would allow him to discontinue the use of his colostomy bag, which he contends he will not be able to receive while at the DOC. Id. at 14.

[10] But similar arguments have been routinely rejected by this Court. For example, in a recent memorandum decision, a panel found no abuse of discretion when the trial court revoked a defendant's probation after she consumed alcohol, missed an appointment with probation, and left the state without permission. May v. State, No. 25A-CR-1097, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025) (mem.). The defendant argued her probation should not have been revoked because “she had a cancer diagnosis for which she needed treatment that the jail could not provide[.]” Id. In rejecting that argument, the panel reasoned that the cancer “diagnosis was uncorroborated, and [the defendant] did not attempt to comply with the terms of her probation[,]” so “the trial court was well within its discretion to order [her] to serve the remainder of her suspended sentence.” Id.

[11] Similarly, in Armour v. State, the defendant argued the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her probation because she “suffer[ed] from several serious health conditions” including “heart and kidney issues[.]” No. 22A-CR-2407, at *5 (Ind. Ct. App. Apr. 18, 2023) (mem.). The panel affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning the defendant “ha[d] violated her probation multiple times for a myriad of reasons” and her “argument that her health conditions should somehow have allowed her to escape the trial court finding her in violation of her probation is an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses, which we cannot do.” Id.

[12] We are persuaded by the reasoning of the Armour and May panels that in light of Bennett's repeated violations, neither his use of a colostomy bag nor the possibility of reversal surgery renders the trial court's decision to revoke his community corrections placement and probation an abuse of discretion. While Bennett summarily asserts in his brief that he is a candidate for reversal surgery, he presented no medical evidence to corroborate that claim, let alone that he will be unable to receive the medical care he needs while in the DOC. By Bennett's own admission, the trial court showed him considerable grace despite several violations, and that grace predictably ran out after he demonstrated he could not stop using drugs and alcohol while in community corrections. Under these circumstances, Bennett has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion.

Conclusion

[13] Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bennett's community corrections placement and probation, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A defendant can violate the terms of probation even if they are serving an earlier portion of their sentence. See Kopkey v. State, 743 N.E.2d 331, 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (“Merely because a sentencing order states that actual probation will begin after another portion of the sentence is served does not alter the fact that the ‘probationary period’ for revocation purposes begins immediately after sentencing.”), trans. denied.

DeBoer, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.