Tyler Berry, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Tyler Berry appeals after the trial court revoked his community corrections placement and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Department of Correction (the DOC). Finding the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In April 2021, the State charged Berry with Level 2 felony dealing in a Schedule I controlled substance, Level 5 felony possession of cocaine, two counts of Class A misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, and Class C misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Berry pled guilty to the Level 2 felony, the State dismissed the other charges, and the trial court imposed a twelve-year executed sentence in the DOC. The sentencing order requested that the DOC place Berry in the Recovery While Incarcerated (RWI) program and provided the court would consider modifying his sentence if he successfully completed it. Berry completed the RWI program in April 2022, and in May the court modified the remainder of his sentence to community corrections. As a condition of the modification, the court required Berry to “undergo a substance abuse evaluation at a facility approved by [community corrections] and ․ follow any and all recommended treatment.” Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 42.

[3] In December 2022, the community corrections office filed a petition to revoke Berry's community corrections placement. The petition alleged Berry committed numerous violations of the terms of his placement, including missing scheduled treatment sessions and classes, testing positive for marijuana, failing to respond to ankle monitor alerts, and stealing groceries from Walmart (which resulted in new charges being filed). In August 2023, Berry admitted to those violations. The court partially revoked his community corrections placement and ordered him to serve four more years in the DOC, after which he would return to community corrections.

[4] Berry resumed community corrections in November 2024. Less than one month later, police officers were dispatched to his home after receiving a report of a drug overdose. Berry told one of the responding officers he had taken too much suboxone, a controlled substance for which he did not have a current prescription. Though a subsequent drug test came back negative, the suspected overdose prompted community corrections to place Berry at a sober living residence while he participated in intensive outpatient drug treatment.

[5] While at the sober living residence, Berry missed five treatment sessions in January, March, and April 2025. He nonetheless completed the intensive outpatient program and was enrolled in aftercare. In May, he missed a group session in the aftercare program. Community corrections informally sanctioned Berry for missing that session by placing him in the county jail for twenty-four hours. When he was released, his community corrections case manager told him that “he'd be on zero tolerance” going forward—meaning “[a]ny further violations of any kind would result in [community corrections] filing a [revocation petition] ․” Transcript at 18. On July 22, Berry missed two more aftercare treatment sessions. The next day, community corrections filed a petition to revoke his placement.

[6] The trial court's evidentiary hearing on the revocation petition was held on December 11 and 18, 2025. Berry's community corrections case manager testified about his violations outlined above. Additionally, the State offered into evidence copies of the rules and conditions of home detention to which Berry had agreed, community corrections’ disciplinary policies, and an incident report Berry signed in May acknowledging that he had been placed on “[z]ero tolerance[.]” Exhibits at 12. After the State rested its case, Berry called his therapist as a witness. The therapist testified that he started providing outpatient therapy to Berry in May and diagnosed him with generalized anxiety disorder, PTSD, and substance abuse disorder. He also testified that before the missed appointments in July, Berry had been progressing in therapy, his mood was improving, and his anxiety was decreasing. In the therapist's opinion, Berry would continue to progress if he was able to “get ․ back on track” and consistently participate in treatment. Tr. at 40.

[7] Following the presentation of evidence, the State argued that in light of Berry's repeated violations and his failure to “conform his behavior[,]” it had “no other option but to request that the balance of his sentence be revoked to be served and executed.” Id. at 42. In response, Berry asserted that given his progress in therapy and drug treatment, his community corrections placement should not be revoked for a single missed appointment. The trial court rejected Berry's characterization of his violations, reasoning from the bench as follows:

I'm not looking at this as one missed appointment after they put you on zero tolerance. I'm looking at this as a whole lot of misses since the last revocation[.] ․ Do I think that you need the treatment? ․ Do I think you were making progress in the treatment that you were given? Absolutely. Do I think that you were doing everything that you needed to do to be compliant with the Court's order? Unfortunately[ ] not[.]

Id. at 49. Accordingly, the court ordered Berry to serve the rest of his sentence at the DOC, with instructions for the DOC to permit him to participate “in any mental health and cognitive behavior programs during his time of incarceration ․” Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 73. Berry now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Community corrections is “a program consisting of residential centers and work release, home detention, or electronic monitoring ․” Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-2. “Placement in community corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court[.]” Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (citing I.C. § 35-38-2.6-3(a)). Such a placement is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Id. (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1002 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)).

[9] When a defendant violates the terms of his community corrections placement,

[t]he community corrections director may “[c]hange the terms of the placement,” “[c]ontinue the placement,” “[r]eassign a person assigned to a specific community corrections program to a different community corrections program,” or “[r]equest that the court revoke the placement and commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the remainder of the person's sentence.”

Ewing v. State, 273 N.E.3d 1107, 1112-13 (Ind. 2026) (quoting I.C. § 35-38-2.6-5(a)(1)-(4)) (all alterations but the first in original). We review a court's decision to revoke community corrections for an abuse of discretion, which occurs “where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances.” Smith v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1110, 1112 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007)); see also Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (“For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation.”) (footnote omitted), reh'g denied.

[10] Here, it is undisputed that the trial court was well within its discretion to sanction Berry for violating the terms of community corrections. Berry has repeatedly violated those terms since he was initially released from the DOC in 2022, and he acknowledges the “violation of a single condition of placement is sufficient to revoke placement.” Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 60 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. But Berry argues the sanction the court imposed for his most recent violation, i.e., the revocation of his entire modified sentence, was “disproportionate to the violations established ․” Appellant's Brief at 16. Specifically, according to Berry, the court's decision was not consistent with “[t]he mitigating evidence demonstrat[ing] [his] noncompliance occurred in the context of mental health crises and socioeconomic instability, while measurable progress in treatment was ongoing.” Id.

[11] The flaw in Berry's argument, however, is that it fails to explain how the court abused its discretion in light of his repeated violations, which continued after less severe sanctions had been imposed. As the trial court explained at the revocation hearing, although Berry progressed in his mental health and drug treatment, “that's just a tree in the forest[.]” Tr. at 46. And, the court continued, “there's a lot of big trees in that forest[.]” Id. Those proverbial trees include Berry's ongoing struggles with substance abuse despite his completion of the DOC's RWI program, missing several treatment sessions while on community corrections, the filing of new charges after shoplifting from Walmart, and violating community corrections after he had been shown leniency for his earlier violations.

[12] This case can be distinguished from Sullivan v. State, where the defendant's plea agreement provided that a single violation would result in revocation of his community corrections, defendant failed to report to community corrections once while he received treatment in a mental health hospital, and the trial court revoked his community corrections. 56 N.E.3d 1157, 1161-62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Unlike the single “minor rule violation” at issue there, id. at 1161, Berry repeatedly violated the terms of his placement and—despite making progress in treatment— Berry missed yet another treatment session after community corrections instructed him that it would not tolerate any new violations. The grace the trial court afforded him finally ran out. Under these circumstances, Berry's request that we reverse the court's decision based on his ongoing mental health struggles and socioeconomic circumstances is merely a request to reweigh the evidence which this Court will not do. See, e.g., Dixon v. State, No. 25A-CR-478, 2025 WL 2681037, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 19, 2025) (mem.) (rejecting defendant's argument that revocation of community corrections was unwarranted despite repeated violations because he'd made “substantial steps towards addressing his substance abuse and behavioral issues”).

Conclusion

[13] For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

[14] Affirmed.

DeBoer, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.