Deontrey Thomas, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Memorandum Decision by Judge Kenworthy

Judges Bradford and Pyle concur.

Case Summary

[1] After he admitted to violating the terms of his community corrections work release placement, Deontrey Thomas appeals the trial court's order revoking his placement and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”). Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his placement and imposing the sanction, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In late 2023, pursuant to an agreement with the State, Thomas pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The trial court sentenced him to six years in the DOC, all executed in the LaPorte County Community Corrections (“LPCCC”) work release program. The trial court also ordered Thomas to undergo mental health and substance use evaluations, follow all recommended treatment, and participate in an anger management program. After completing a sentence in another case, Thomas began his placement with LPCCC in November 2024.

[3] On April 21, 2025, LPCCC moved to revoke Thomas’ placement, alleging he violated the placement terms as follows:

1. In January 2025, Thomas submitted to a random drug screen which tested positive for marijuana and synthetic cannabinoids. The conduct adjustment board (the “Board”) found him guilty of violating the placement term requiring him to refrain from possession or use of controlled substances or alcohol.

2. In February, Thomas directed foul and threatening language at staff, threatened to throw hot water into a staff area toward staff members, threatened staff with physical violence, and grabbed a chair from a restricted area, all of which led to a facility lockdown. The Board found Thomas engaged in conduct which constituted: threatening; disorderly conduct; insolent, vulgar, or profane behavior; disruptive behavior; and unauthorized area entry.

3. In March, Thomas again tested positive for synthetic cannabinoid use during a random drug screen.

4. In April, Thomas kicked open a door and demanded staff provide him with medication. He became agitated, threatened to physically harm the staff, and would not follow orders. The Board found Thomas engaged in conduct which constituted: threatening; disorderly conduct; refusing an order; insolent, vulgar, or profane behavior; and interfering with staff.

See Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 192–96.

[4] On July 10, 2025, the trial court held a remote revocation hearing at which Thomas admitted to the facts alleged in the petition to revoke. Thomas requested he be placed back in work release because (1) he quickly found work after starting the program; (2) he was current on fees; (3) of his mental health diagnoses; (4) he was benefitting from medication management, which he could not access in jail; (5) he had been benefitting from therapy; (6) he was participating in anger management; and (7) he did not minimize the seriousness of his conduct. In short, Thomas argued he needed more time in community corrections to improve his behavior.

[5] The State advocated Thomas should serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC. In support, it argued he “treats the staff terribly at work release” and noted he caused a lockdown. Tr. Vol. 2 at 13. In the State's view, “his behavior has become increasingly more disturbing, including trying to fight” work release employees. Id. at 14. The State also pointed to Thomas’ prior criminal history, past noncompliance with probation conditions, and current drug use.

[6] The trial court accepted Thomas’ admission, revoked his placement, and as a sanction ordered the balance of his sentence—five years and 166 days—served in the DOC. The court recommended him for the Recovery While Incarcerated program.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Thomas’ sentence and ordered the balance served in the DOC.

[7] We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (footnote omitted). 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. Like probation, placement in community corrections is a matter of grace, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Id.

[8] A placement revocation hearing is civil in nature, and the State must prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 551. Revocation is a two-step process: first, the trial court must make a factual determination that a violation of a placement condition occurred; second, if a violation occurred, the court must determine the appropriate sanction. See Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013).

[9] When reviewing a trial court's revocation decision, we consider the evidence most favorable to the trial court's judgment without reweighing the evidence or judging witness credibility. Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 551. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a defendant violated any placement terms, we will affirm its decision to revoke the placement. Id. A trial court's sentencing decisions for placement violations are reviewable using the abuse of discretion standard. See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Id.

[10] Thomas does not dispute the trial court's factual determination he violated the terms of his community corrections placement on four occasions over the five months he served on work release. But he contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his placement and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in the DOC. He argues he needs further treatment to address his mental health, substance use, and anger management issues, which he can better obtain through work release than in the DOC.

[11] The evidence shows Thomas has a history of noncompliance with conditions of probation and other alternatives to incarceration. As a juvenile, Thomas was adjudicated a delinquent for actions that would constitute two counts of intimidation and one count of criminal trespass if committed by an adult. Thomas violated his probation in that case and served time on GPS monitoring. As an adult, Thomas has four prior criminal convictions consisting of two felonies (for domestic battery and resisting law enforcement) and two misdemeanors (for domestic battery and disorderly conduct). In these cases, he was ordered to serve various sentences, including probation, GPS monitoring, and time in jail and the DOC. His probation in the misdemeanor domestic battery case was revoked when he committed new offenses. And at the time he committed the instant offense, there were four pending petitions to revoke his probation in the felony domestic battery case.

[12] Then while in the LPCCC work release facility, Thomas used foul and offensive language, entered restricted areas, threatened staff with physical violence, disobeyed orders, displayed “aggressive behavior,” and on one occasion became “violent and agitated.” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 204, 211. He also twice tested positive for illicit drug use. Considering Thomas’ history of noncompliance with alternatives to incarceration and multiple violations of the terms of his placement in just four months, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his probation and ordering him to serve time in the DOC. See McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1243 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (holding the trial court did not err in revoking the defendant's community corrections commitment and ordering him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the DOC when the evidence showed he tested positive for drugs twice and had other violations of the work release center rules).

[13] As for Thomas’ argument he needs more time to engage in treatment only available through community corrections work release, Thomas has had several opportunities to engage with treatment but appears to have squandered the grace afforded by the trial court's alternative sentencing. Still, the trial court recommended him for the Recovery While Incarcerated program to help treat his substance use issues, so he can continue to work toward recovery as he serves his sentence in the DOC.

Conclusion

[14] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Thomas’ work release placement and ordering him to serve the balance of his sentence in the DOC.

[15] Affirmed.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.