Calvin L. Lowery, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Calvin L. Lowery appeals the revocation of his placement in the LaPorte County Community Corrections program and the order that he serve the remainder of his sentence in the county jail. Because Lowery has served that sentence and been released from custody, we can afford him no relief and dismiss his appeal as moot.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2018, a jury found Lowery guilty of Level 5 felony dealing in a narcotic drug. Lowery then admitted to an enhancing circumstance – a prior conviction of dealing in a controlled substance – and the trial court entered judgment of conviction as a Level 4 felony. The court sentenced Lowery to eight years, with six years executed in the Department of Correction and two years suspended to probation.

[3] Lowery was later serving a portion of his sentence on electronic monitoring through the LaPorte County Community Corrections program. Between September 2024 and January 2025, the State filed three petitions to revoke Lowery's placement. Nevertheless, in December 2024, while a petition to revoke Lowery's placement was pending, the trial court released Lowery from jail and returned him to the community corrections GPS program, on the conditions that he remain eligible and compliant. The trial court also authorized him to reside in Illinois.

[4] Lowery did not properly charge his GPS tracker, and on January 4, 2025, the tracker stopped working. The field officer responsible for monitoring Lowery was unable to locate him and filed another petition to revoke his placement. The trial court entered a warrant for Lowery's arrest on January 7, 2025. Lowery's arrest finally occurred on January 26, 2026.

[5] At the evidentiary hearing on March 17, 2026, the State withdrew the first petition, and the trial court proceeded on the remaining two. The trial court found that Lowery violated the terms of his placement and bond by failing to participate in a required program, violating the conditions of his temporary leave, and committing escape. The court ordered Lowery to serve the remainder of his sentence in the LaPorte County Jail. The court's written order, signed March 24, 2026, fixed the remainder at 197 days, credited Lowery with 148 days of accrued time and 50 days of good-time credit, found his sentence served, and ordered his immediate release.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Lowery asks us to reverse the revocation of his placement and the order that he serve the remainder of his sentence in the county jail. We need not consider that argument because his appeal is moot. A case is moot “when no effective relief can be rendered to the parties before the court.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 603 (Ind. 2009). When a “sentence has been served, the issue of the validity of the sentence is rendered moot.” Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 40 n.2 (Ind. 2004) (quoting Irwin v. State, 744 N.E.2d 565, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)).

[7] The sanction Lowery challenges has been served in full. The trial court ordered him to serve the 197-day remainder of his sentence, credited him with 148 days of accrued time and 50 days of good-time credit, found the sentence served, and ordered his immediate release on March 24, 2026. No sanction remains for us to set aside, and reversing the order to serve the remainder of his sentence would not give Lowery any form of relief. His challenge to that sanction is therefore moot; indeed, having been released before he filed his notice of appeal, Lowery's appeal was moot when he brought it. We confronted the same circumstance in Breedlove v. State, 20 N.E.3d 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, wherein a defendant appealed the revocation of his community corrections placement but was released from custody while the appeal was pending. We held that “Breedlove's release from prison less than a month after he filed his appeal rendered his argument moot, and we dismiss this case.” Id. at 174. Lowery's appeal is in the same circumstance.

[8] Lowery's arguments are directed to the sanction – the trial court's decision to revoke his placement and require him to serve the balance of his sentence. He contends that result was an abuse of discretion because he was working to improve his circumstances and feared returning to jail. He does not contend that he did not violate the conditions of his placement; he did not dispute the underlying conduct before the trial court, and his argument on appeal accepts the violations and challenges only their consequence. A finding that a defendant violated the conditions of a community corrections placement may carry consequences in later proceedings, and a challenge to such a finding might not be rendered moot by the defendant's completion of the resulting sanction. However, Lowery presents no such challenge. Because the only relief he seeks is relief from a sanction that he has already served, no live controversy remains for us to decide.

[9] Nor does this appeal fall within the exception that permits us to decide an otherwise-moot appeal presenting a “question of great public importance which is likely to recur.” G.W. v. State, 231 N.E.3d 184, 188 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Matter of Tina T., 579 N.E.2d 48, 54 (Ind. 1991)). Lowery's appeal raises no such question; it asks only whether his own sanction was appropriate. As in Breedlove, he requests review of alleged error, not a matter of great public importance. 20 N.E.3d at 174. We therefore decline to invoke the exception and dismiss Lowery's appeal.

Conclusion

[10] Lowery has served the sanction he challenges and has been released from custody. Because we can afford him no effective relief and no exception to the mootness doctrine applies, his appeal is moot, and we dismiss it.

[11] Dismissed.

May, Judge.

Tavitas, C.J., and Vaidik, J., concur.