Joey Cornett, Appellant-Respondent v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Joey Cornett appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In January 2025, Cornett pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a level 4 felony. In February 2025, the court sentenced Cornett to 730 days with 694 days suspended to probation. The order of probation stated that Cornett shall not commit any criminal offense and shall not possess a firearm or live in a residence where there is a firearm.

[3] On August 5, 2025, Mark Richards, who worked for Marion County Probation Department, went to a residence in Indianapolis where Cornett lived with his wife and three children to conduct a compliance check. Richards approached the residence, saw that “the front door was open and the glass screen door was closed,” and observed Cornett sitting on a couch in the living room. Transcript Volume II at 27. Cornett “said he was naked and he had a blanket on his lap.” Id. Richards told Cornett, “we need to come in for the compliance check,” Cornett “told one of his kids to open the door,” and Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) officers conducted a safety sweep. Id. The officers “located a handgun directly to the right of where [ ] Cornett was sitting.” Id. “It was to the right of where he was sitting in a backpack.” Id. Richards saw that Cornett was seated at “the end of the couch” and that “his right arm was on the right arm of the couch and then the backpack was on the floor to the right.” Id. at 28. The backpack was “right next to where he was sitting.” Id. The gun was inside a carrying case which was in the backpack. IMPD officers also located “packaged up marijuana in the living room.” Id. at 29. Richards saw that juveniles, who were “approximately young teenage age,” were present and that Cornett's wife was not present.¹ Id.

[4] On August 6, 2025, the State filed a notice of probation violation alleging that IMPD officers assisted Marion County probation officers with a compliance check on Cornett's residence and located multiple containers of commercially packaged marijuana and a Glock pistol. On September 4, 2025, the court held a hearing at which Richards testified. On cross-examination, when asked how many juveniles were in the house during the search, Richards replied, “two to three.” Id. at 32. Richards indicated that he was not sure whether the backpack “was open or closed ultimately when police searched it.” Id. at 33. He also testified that the packages of marijuana were found in the living room, but he did not know exactly where in the room. On redirect examination, Richards indicated that, when he arrived at the residence, the glass door was closed but he could see through it and that he saw Cornett sitting on the couch. When asked, “did you watch and look in the whole time until the juvenile answered the door,” he answered affirmatively. Id. at 36. When asked, “[a]t any time, did you see anyone while you were looking in, go to the area where the gun was located,” Richards replied “No,” and when asked, “nobody went over there between the time you arrived on the front porch looking in the window, until officers made entry,” he again replied “No.” Id. at 36-37. On recross-examination, Richards indicated that he did not see Cornett make any furtive movements, attempt to flee, or attempt to move any items when he arrived.

[5] The prosecutor argued, “this is a constructive possession case,” Cornett “was the only adult in the home at the time of the search,” “[t]he gun was located in a backpack which was literally right next to him on the couch,” “[t]he evidence is that when the officer arrived, he looked directly into the home,” “[n]one of the other juveniles in the house were anywhere near where that handgun was,” and “the marijuana was found in the living room area which is where [Cornett] was.” Id. at 39. Cornett's counsel argued that Richards was “not really quite sure where [the marijuana packages] were found,” “turning to the gun, ․ we have two to three juveniles in the house of the age that they could potentially have guns,” and “we have another probationer in the house.” Id. at 39-40.

[6] The trial court found that Cornett was knowingly in possession of a firearm and marijuana in his home. The court noted Cornett's criminal history, revoked Cornett's placement on probation, and ordered that he serve his previously suspended sentence.

Discussion

[7] Cornett asserts the State failed to prove that he was in constructive possession of the firearm or marijuana. He argues that he did not have exclusive possession of the residence which he shared with his wife and three children and that the State based its entire case on his mere proximity to the contraband.

[8] Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012). A trial court's probation decision is subject to review for abuse of discretion. Id. A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 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. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court's conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, we will affirm its decision to revoke probation. Id. Violation of a single condition is sufficient to revoke probation. Wilson v. State, 708 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).

[9] Possession of an item may be either actual or constructive. Lampkins v. State, 682 N.E.2d 1268, 1275 (Ind. 1997), modified on reh'g, 685 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. 1997). Constructive possession occurs when a person has the capability and intent to maintain control over the contraband. Id. The capability element is met when the State shows the defendant is able to reduce the contraband to his personal possession. Goliday v. State, 708 N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). To show the intent element, the State must demonstrate the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Id. This knowledge may be inferred from either the exclusive control over the premises containing the contraband or, if the control is non-exclusive, evidence of additional circumstances pointing to the defendant's knowledge of the contraband's presence. Id. Some possible examples of such circumstances include (1) incriminating statements; (2) attempting to leave or making furtive gestures; (3) the location of contraband like drugs in settings suggesting manufacturing; (4) the item's proximity to the defendant; (5) the location of contraband within the defendant's plain view; and (6) the mingling of contraband with other items the defendant owns. Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171, 175 (Ind. 2011). The State is not required to prove all additional circumstances when showing that a defendant had the intent to maintain dominion and control over contraband. Canfield v. State, 128 N.E.3d 563, 573 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.

[10] The record reveals that the terms of Cornett's probation included that he shall not commit any criminal offense and shall not possess a firearm or live in a residence where there is a firearm. Richards was thoroughly examined and cross-examined regarding his recollections and observations of the location where the backpack containing a firearm was found in the living room of Cornett's residence, the position of the backpack relative to Cornett, the presence of juveniles in the residence, and his ability to observe Cornett and the backpack through the glass door until IMPD officers entered the residence. Richards testified that he observed that Cornett was seated at “the end of the couch,” “his right arm was on the right arm of the couch and then the backpack was on the floor to the right,” and the backpack was “right next to where he was sitting.” Transcript Volume II at 28. He also testified the police located packaged marijuana in the living room. In light of the record, we conclude that the evidence presented during the revocation hearing was sufficient to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Cornett violated his probation.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's revocation of Cornett's probation.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Richards indicated on cross-examination that Cornett's wife was also on probation.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.