Chance Bowlin, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Chance Bowlin admitted to violating the terms of his work release placement. The trial court revoked Bowlin's placement and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in the Department of Correction. Bowlin argues that this was an abuse of discretion. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In September 2023, after Bowlin physically assaulted a man and stole $100 in cash, the State charged him with Level 3 felony robbery and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. In March 2024, Bowlin entered into a plea agreement, pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to Level 5 felony robbery and serve four years in the Department of Correction via two years in a community corrections work release program, followed by two years in a community corrections GPS program. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the misdemeanor charge. The sentence was to be served consecutive to a probation revocation in another cause. In April, the trial court sentenced Bowlin according to the terms of the plea agreement.

[3] On July 16, 2025, the State filed a petition to revoke Bowlin's work release placement based on (1) his unauthorized possession of property and possession of altered property on his bunk at the work release facility and (2) his failure to return to the facility after consuming psychedelic mushrooms at his place of employment on July 14. The trial court issued a warrant for Bowlin's arrest, which was served on September 19.

[4] At a hearing on December 4, Bowlin admitted to violating the terms of his work release placement.¹ He claimed that he had “relapsed” by consuming methamphetamine and psychedelics following the death of his cousin, who had been “ejected from his vehicle, running from the police.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Defense counsel asked the trial court to “give [Bowlin] another shot with work release and step-down GPS.” Id. at 11. The prosecutor opined that “the remainder of the sentence in the Department of Correction[ ] is appropriate, certainly given that [Bowlin] just took off for several months, and only when we found him, the State that is, did he come back.” Id. The trial court accepted Bowlin's “admission to the petition to revoke placement[,]” found that he had violated the terms of his placement, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction. Id. Bowlin now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the Department of Correction, and placement in such programs “is a matter of grace and not a right.” Johnson v. State, 62 N.E.3d 1224, 1229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Where, as here, a program participant admits to violating program rules, the trial court determines whether the violations warrant revocation of the placement. Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “[V]iolation of a single condition of placement is sufficient to revoke placement.” Id. at 60. We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion. Johnson, 62 N.E.3d at 1229. “An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial court's decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court.” Id. at 1230.

[6] Bowlin, who violated two conditions of his placement, argues that the trial court abused its discretion by not returning him to work release. He states that, “[p]rior to his relapse, [he] was working at Wendy's, [he] was on Suboxone trying to get sober, had a behavioral coach and was seeing a therapist weekly.” Appellant's Br. at 9. He “respectfully request[s] another opportunity to take advantage of local resources, beginning with Work Release where he can be in a structured environment and get treatment started back up, then later step down to GPS.” Id.

[7] Bowlin's argument disregards that he was in a structured environment when he relapsed and that his current sentence is being served consecutive to a probation revocation in another cause. Bowlin has demonstrated that he has been unable to comply with the terms of alternative sentences when he has been afforded the opportunity. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Bowlin's work release placement.

[8] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The petition alleged that a sharpened paper clip and “a nail clipper that had the arm broken off” were found on Bowlin's bunk. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 77. At the hearing, Bowlin admitted to having “some pieces of [his] bunk that [were] broken off and sharpened and stuff.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7.

Bailey, Judge.

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