Melvin Bibbs, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Melvin Bibbs appeals the trial court's revocation of his community corrections placement and order that he serve the balance of his sentences in two cases. We affirm.

Issues

[2] Bibbs raises the following two restated issues:

I. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the trial court's revocation of his community corrections placement.

II. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentences in the Department of Correction (“DOC”).

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On August 22, 2018, the State charged Bibbs with Level 3 felony kidnapping, Level 4 felony burglary, two counts of Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, two counts of Level 6 felony possession of cocaine or narcotic drugs, Level 6 felony intimidation, Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement in cause number 02D05-1808-F3-51 (“F3-51”). On February 21, 2020, Bibbs entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 4 felony burglary, Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. The parties further agreed that Bibbs would receive an aggregate eight-year sentence with four years executed in the DOC and four years suspended to probation. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Bibbs pursuant to its terms.

[4] On April 10, 2023, the trial court placed Bibbs in the Community Transition Program through the DOC, with the condition that he comply with the terms and conditions of the Reentry Court Program. On October 30, Allen County Community Corrections (“ACCC”) filed a petition to revoke Bibbs's placement in the program on the grounds that he had been terminated from the Choices Treatment Center “for failure to abide by house rules” and had failed to pay required community corrections fees. App. v. 3 at 26. On November 27, the trial court found that Bibbs had violated the terms and conditions of the Reentry Court Program, revoked his placement, and revoked one year of Bibbs's previously suspended four-year sentence to be served in the DOC. The court placed Bibbs on probation for the remaining three years of his sentence, “w[ith] zero tolerance” moving forward. Id. at 37.

[5] One year later, on September 23, 2024, the State charged Bibbs with Level 5 felony domestic battery resulting in serious bodily injury, Level 6 felony domestic battery, Level 6 felony criminal confinement, and Level 6 felony strangulation in cause number 02D06-2409-F5-418 (“F5-418”). On February 24, 2025, Bibbs entered into a plea agreement with the State to resolve F5-418 and agreed to plead guilty to Level 6 felony criminal confinement and Level 6 felony domestic battery. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. On March 17, the trial court accepted his plea agreement and sentenced Bibbs to serve two and one-half years, with one year executed in ACCC's Residential Services Program and one and one-half years suspended to probation. The court also revoked the balance of Bibbs's previously suspended sentence in F3-51 and ordered that Bibbs serve those three years in the Residential Services Program, consecutive to the one-year executed sentence imposed in F5-418.¹

[6] Two months later, on May 30, 2025, ACCC filed a petition to revoke Bibbs's placement in the Residential Services Program in both F3-51 and F5-418. The State alleged that Bibbs had violated ACCC rules by missing a drug screen, being disrespectful toward staff, failing to complete required programming with LSSI Works Services, failing to gain employment or complete required job applications, failing to complete fourteen hours of community service that was “to be completed by 05/24/25[,]” and failing to pay required fees. App. v. 3 at 76.

[7] On August 21, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing at which Bibbs's ACCC case manager, Morgan Miller, testified. Miller testified that Bibbs had missed a drug screen and had been disrespectful toward ACCC staff. Miller explained that the LSSI program is a “multiphase” employment program in which the first phase assists participants in employment skill building and the second phase involves finding employment through the completion of job applications. Tr. at 114. Miller testified that Bibbs completed the first phase of the LSSI program but failed to submit five job applications per week as required in the second phase of the program. She further stated that Bibbs had been terminated from the LSSI program before completion “due to his behavior.” Id. at 117. Although Bibbs had been briefly employed in April 2025, he had been fired from that job “due to issues with his phone” and remained unemployed thereafter. Id. at 115. Bibbs also failed to complete fourteen hours of community service and did not inform Miller of this failure until “after it was due.” Id. at 118. Miller believed that Bibbs “routinely showed a pattern of disregard for [ACCC] rules and policies.” Id. at 120.

[8] In an order dated August 21, the trial court found that Bibbs had violated the terms and conditions of his sentences in F3-51 and F5-418. Specifically, the court found Bibbs had violated the ACCC terms and conditions “as contained in the petition [to revoke placement] with respect to allegations two (2) [regarding the failure to complete the LSSI program], three (3) [regarding the failure to find employment], and four (4) [regarding the failure to timely complete community service].” Appealed Order. Consequently, it revoked the balance of Bibbs's previously suspended sentence in F3-51 and a portion of his sentence in F5-418 and ordered that Bibbs serve those four years in the DOC. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

Standard of Review

[9] Bibbs contends there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that he violated the terms of his community corrections placement, and the court abused its discretion when it revoked his placement as a sanction. “Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (citation modified). We review determinations of probation and community corrections placement violations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013); see also Morgan v. State, 87 N.E.3d 506, 510 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (citing Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)) (noting that community corrections revocations are analogous to probation revocations and are controlled by the same standard of review), trans. denied. “An abuse of discretion occurs where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law.” Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616 (citations omitted). When the sufficiency of evidence is at issue in a probation and/or placement revocation proceeding, we apply the same standard of review as in any other sufficiency of the evidence question. See, e.g., Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). That is, we “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).

[10] A probation and/or placement revocation proceeding is a two-step process. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. First, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence showed that a violation occurred. Id.; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3; I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5. Second, the trial court must determine whether the violation warrants revocation of probation and/or community corrections placement or some lesser sanction. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. In making the latter determination, the trial court may consider such factors as the defendant's criminal history. See, e.g., Slater v. State, 223 N.E.3d 298, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (holding the defendant's criminal history supported the sanction for probation violation), trans. denied.

Issue One: Sufficiency of Evidence of Violation

[11] Bibbs admits that he had not, as required by the terms of his placement in community corrections, found employment or completed the LSSI program and community service hours by the time of the revocation hearing. However, he maintains that there was insufficient evidence that he would not do so at some point before his probationary term expired. That contention is incorrect. Miller testified that Bibbs had failed to complete the LSSI program and had been terminated from that program due to his behavior. Based on that testimony, the trial court was within its discretion to conclude that Bibbs, through his own actions, had lost the opportunity to finish that program and could not do so in the future. Similarly, Miller's testimony established that Bibbs had been fired from his previous employment. And the verified petition to revoke Bibbs's placement stated that he had been required to complete the fourteen hours of community service “by 5/24/2025” but had failed to do so. App. v. 3 at 76. Miller's testimony corroborated that fact when she stated that Bibbs had not informed her of his failure to complete community services until “after it was due” to be completed. Tr. at 118.

[12] In short, considering only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, as we must, it is apparent that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that Bibbs had failed to timely comply with the terms of his community corrections placement. See Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 639. Bibbs's contentions to the contrary are requests that we reweigh the evidence, which we may not do. See id.

Issue Two: Sanction for Violation

[13] If a court finds that a person has violated the terms of his community corrections placement, it may impose one or more of several possible sanctions, including revocation of placement and commitment to DOC for the remainder of the sentence. I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5. And, while probationers must be given the opportunity to present mitigating factors, Woods, 892 N.E.2d at 640, the trial court is not required to consider aggravating and mitigating factors when deciding whether to revoke probation or placement, Porter v. State, 117 N.E.3d 673, 675 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). Moreover, a single violation of a condition of probation or placement is sufficient to permit the trial court to revoke probation or placement. Pierce, 44 N.E.3d at 755.

[14] As already noted, the evidence established that Bibbs violated the terms of his community corrections placement. In addition, the evidence showed that Bibbs has an extensive criminal history. The presentence investigation report shows that Bibbs has a history of contact with the criminal justice system—both as a juvenile and as an adult. As an adult, Bibbs has convictions for Level 6 felony domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended, Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, Class A misdemeanor domestic battery, Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, and Class B misdemeanor possession of marijuana. Bibbs has received sentences to probation, the Allen County Jail, and the DOC. Throughout that time, Bibbs had his suspended sentences revoked four times and had been terminated from the Reentry Court Program once. And he was on probation in F3-51 when he committed the felony-level offenses in F5-418.

[15] Thus, Bibbs's criminal history shows that he is a repeat violent offender who has a record of violating his suspended and executed sentences. Nonetheless, in the past, the court had given him multiple opportunities to stay in the community and develop positive habits. Bibbs failed to take advantage of those opportunities by either committing new violent crimes or failing to take seriously his obligation to find employment. While his most recent probation violations may appear to be “technical in nature,” as Bibbs claims, Appellant's Br. at 15, it is undisputed that Bibbs has a pattern of probation violations in which he squandered his opportunities to stay in the community. See Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007) (concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked two years of a previously suspended sentence in response to multiple probation violations, a past criminal history, and failure to complete a required program). Bibbs has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his placement and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentences in the DOC.

Conclusion

[16] There is sufficient evidence to support the trial court's determination that Bibbs violated the conditions of his community corrections placement. And given Bibbs's pattern of probation violations, past criminal history, and failure to complete required community corrections programs, the trial court acted well within its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in F3-51 and the remainder of his suspended sentence in F5-418 in the DOC.

[17] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Thus, between the two cases, Bibbs was to serve a total of four years in ACCC's Residential Services Program.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.