SCHOENFELD v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Christopher Schoenfeld pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony, and admitted to being an habitual offender. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Schoenfeld to six years, plus three years for the habitual offender enhancement. The trial court ordered five years of the sentence to be executed on work release, with the remaining four years suspended to probation. The State subsequently filed petitions to revoke Schoenfeld's work release placement and his probation. The trial court found that Schoenfeld violated the terms of his placement and probation and revoked the placement and probation. For the community corrections violation, the trial court ordered Schoenfeld to serve the balance of his executed sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”); for the probation violation, the trial court ordered Schoenfeld to serve six months of his previously suspended sentence. Schoenfeld appeals and claims that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his work release placement and probation and ordering him to execute his sentence in the DOC. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm.

Issue

[2] Schoenfeld presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his work release placement and probation and by ordering him to serve his sentence in the DOC.

Facts

[3] On February 27, 2022, Schoenfeld was found in possession of six grams of methamphetamine and less than one gram of fentanyl. The State charged Schoenfeld with: possession of methamphetamine, a Level 5 felony; possession of a narcotic drug, a Level 6 felony; and alleged that Schoenfeld was an habitual offender. On March 8, 2023, Schoenfeld pleaded guilty to the Level 5 felony and admitted to being an habitual offender, and the State dismissed the Level 6 felony. On May 26, 2023, the trial court sentenced Schoenfeld, pursuant to the plea agreement, to six years, with an additional three years for the habitual offender enhancement. The trial court ordered Schoenfeld to execute five years of this sentence on work release, with the remaining four years suspended to probation.

[4] Schoenfeld began his placement in work release on June 10, 2023, through Fayette County Community Corrections. On January 5, 2024, Schoenfeld traveled to Richmond, Indiana, for work. The community corrections rules permitted Schoenfeld to enter a restaurant to order food, but the rules forbade him from eating inside a restaurant. Despite this, Schoenfeld entered a restaurant and stayed there for almost an hour. Shortly thereafter, local law enforcement responded to the scene of a single-vehicle accident involving Schoenfeld. Schoenfeld's SUV had major damage to its front end; Schoenfeld was in the driver's seat with blood on his face and head; and a female passenger was slumped over the console onto Schoenfeld's lap. Schoenfeld exhibited signs of intoxication. Law enforcement also saw an empty bottle of whisky in the pocket of the driver's side door. Schoenfeld admitted to drinking alcohol, but he refused a blood test despite being read Indiana's implied consent law. A search warrant was issued and executed for a blood draw, which revealed that Schoenfeld's blood alcohol concentration equivalent (“ACE”) was .205. Schoenfeld's passenger suffered severe injuries, including a broken pelvis, broken leg, and an aortic tear. Schoenfeld was arrested and charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury, a Level 5 felony, and operating a vehicle while intoxicated endangering a person, a Level 6 felony.

[5] On February 7, 2025, the State filed a petition to terminate Schoenfeld's work release placement. On February 12, 2025, the State also filed a petition to revoke Schoenfeld's probation. The trial court held a hearing on the petitions on May 15, 2025. The trial court found that Schoenfeld violated the terms of his work release placement and probation. The trial court, therefore, revoked the work release placement and probation and, as a sanction, ordered Schoenfeld to execute the remainder of his executed sentence in the DOC and serve six months of the previously suspended sentence in the DOC. Schoenfeld now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

A. Standard of Review

[6] “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, then 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). “Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a trial court to revoke probation.” Killebrew v. State, 165 N.E.3d 578, 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. “The requirement that a probationer obey federal, state, and local laws is automatically a condition of probation by operation of law.” Luke v. State, 51 N.E.3d 401, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(b).

B. Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's decision to revoke Schoenfeld's placement in work release and probation.

[7] Schoenfeld claims that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his placement in work release and revoking his probation. Specifically, Schoenfeld claims that he was not “beyond rehabilitation”¹ and had a history of untreated drug abuse. He also notes that he had steady, gainful employment. Thus, he argues, with proper substance abuse treatment, he could live a law-abiding life.

[8] These arguments are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence and come to a conclusion other than the trial court. The facts favoring the trial court's decision show that Schoenfeld has a long history of criminal activity. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”), reveals that Schoenfeld has been convicted of over a dozen misdemeanors, including: check fraud, theft, resisting law enforcement, driving while suspended, battery, domestic battery, possession of paraphernalia, and possession of marijuana. He also has numerous prior convictions for felonies, including: theft, auto theft, strangulation, possession of a narcotic drug, possession of methamphetamine, and unlawful possession of a syringe. Schoenfeld has also had his probation revoked in the past.

[9] In the present case, Schoenfeld was offered another chance to reform his behavior. Instead, he violated the terms of his placement and probation by driving while intoxicated, resulting in severe injuries to his passenger. Schoenfeld also refused to consent to a blood draw after being read Indiana's implied consent law. This refusal required law enforcement to obtain a warrant to draw and test Schoenfeld's blood. And Schoenfeld's ACE was well beyond the statutory limits. See Ind. Code § 9-30-5-1 (providing that a person who operates a vehicle with an ACE of greater than .08 commits a Class C misdemeanor, and a person who operates a vehicle with an ACE of greater than .15 commits a Class A misdemeanor). Thus, the trial court was well within its discretion to revoke Schoenfeld's placement in work release and revoke his probation. See Luke, 51 N.E.3d at 421 (affirming trial court's decision to revoke defendant's probation where evidence showed that defendant committed new offense of invasion of privacy while on probation).²

C. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Schoenfeld to serve his sentence in the DOC.

[10] Schoenfeld also claims that the sanction imposed by the trial court—requiring Schoenfeld to serve the remainder of his executed sentence, plus six months of his suspended sentence, in the DOC—was an abuse of discretion. Again, we disagree.

[11] Schoenfeld has a long criminal history. He has also been shown the grace of probation in the past, yet had his probation revoked. Although Schoenfeld claims that much of his criminal behavior is explained by his untreated substance abuse issues, this does not mitigate his behavior. See Caraway v. State, 959 N.E.2d 847, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding that the failure to obtain treatment for substance abuse can be considered as an aggravator, not a mitigator), trans. denied. And despite Schoenfeld's claim that he has not received any substance abuse treatment, the PSI indicates that his probation was revoked in the past for, among other things, “failure to report to & complete treatment at Meridian Addiction and Recovery[.]” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 29. He has simply failed to submit himself to substance abuse treatment.

[12] Schoenfeld also notes that he was steadily and gainfully employed; and his employer wrote a letter requesting leniency from the trial court. But Schoenfeld's employment record must be viewed in the context of his other actions, which include a serious violation of the rules of his placement by committing a crime that resulted in grave injuries to his passenger. Under these facts and circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Schoenfeld to serve the balance of his executed sentence, plus six months of his previously suspended sentence, in the DOC. If anything, the trial court showed leniency by not ordering Schoenfeld to execute the entire four years of his previously suspended sentence, instead of just six months.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Schoenfeld's placement in work release and his probation and ordering Schoenfeld to serve the balance of his executed sentence, plus six months of his previously suspended sentence, in the DOC. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

Weissmann, J., and Foley, J., concur.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Schoenfeld argues that he is not “beyond rehabilitation.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. But this is not the appropriate standard of review in a probation or community corrections revocation case. Instead, a trial court may revoke when the defendant violates the terms of his placement or probation; and a trial court has discretion in selecting from various sanctions, including execution of all or part of the sentence. See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(h)(3) (listing probation sanctions); Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5 (listing community corrections sanctions).

2.   Schoenfeld claims that it was unfair to revoke his probation when he had not yet begun probation. But it is well settled that “ ‘[p]robation may be revoked at any time for a violation of its terms,’ including ‘prior to the start of probation.’ ” Aguilar v. State, 162 N.E.3d 537, 543 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Champlain v. State, 717 N.E.2d 567, 571 (Ind. 1999)), trans. denied.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.