Beavers v. State
| Decision Date | 12 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2770 |
| Parties | Richard L. Beavers, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court Trial Court Cause Nos 49D35-2002-F6-4785 49D35-2103-F6-7123 49D35-2203-F6-7881 The Honorable Charnette D. Garner, Judge
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Casey A. Farrington Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana Daylon L. Welliver Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] In November of 2021, Richard Beavers pled guilty to two counts of Level 6 felony public indecency and was placed in community corrections. In March of 2022, while still placed in community corrections, Beavers was charged with Level 6 felony public indecency for actions committed outside of an Indianapolis-area gas station. Beavers eventually pled guilty to the latest charge and admitted that he had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement. The trial court accepted Beavers's guilty plea and admission, revoked Beavers's community-corrections placement, and sentenced Beavers to an aggregate 1640-day executed sentence with credit for 324 days of time served. On appeal, Beavers contends that the trial court erred by failing to advise him of the rights he was waiving by admitting to violating the terms of his community-corrections placement. Beavers also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him and that his sentence is inappropriate. We affirm.
[¶2] On February 3, 2020, Beavers, "in a public place or place of public resort," knowingly or intentionally fondled his genitals and appeared in a state of nudity "with the intent to arouse or satisfy" his sexual desires in front of a home on 39th Street in Indianapolis. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 35. A witness reported Beavers's behavior, stating that she had observed Beavers "masturbating in her front yard as kids walked to the bus stop." Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 33. Later that day, the State charged Beavers in Cause Number 49D35-2002-F6-4785 ("Cause No. F6-4785") with two counts of Level 6 felony public indecency.
[¶3] On both March 3, and March 5, 2021, Beavers fondled his genitals in a public place, exposing himself to IndyGo bus drivers near the intersection of 38th Street and Sherman Drive in Indianapolis. On March 9, 2021, the State charged Beavers in Cause Number 49D35-2103-F6-7123 ("Cause No. F6-7123") with two counts of Level 6 felony public indecency.
[¶4] On November 29, 2021, Beavers entered into a combined plea agreement, by the terms of which he pled guilty to one count of Level 6 felony public indecency in Cause No. F6-4785 and one count of Level 6 felony public indecency in Cause No. F6-7123. In exchange for Beavers's guilty pleas, the State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts in both cause numbers. In Cause No. F6-4785, the trial court sentenced Beavers to 180 days in the Marion County Jail and seventy-six days in Marion County Community Corrections ("MCCC"). In Cause No. F6-7123, the trial court sentenced Beavers to 730 days in MCCC. The trial court ordered that the sentence imposed in Cause No. F6-7123 run consecutively to the sentence imposed in Cause No. F6-4785.
[¶5] While being monitored by MCCC, on March 13, 2022, Beavers fondled his genitals in a public place, i.e., "at the location of 3609 East 38th Street" in Indianapolis. Appellant's App. Vol. V p. 20. A witness "called police and pretended to be taking a picture of herself all while taking video of [Beavers] to document the behavior for police." Appellant's App. Vol. V p. 18. In addition, a MCCC employee reviewed Beavers's GPS tracking data and determined that Beavers had been "in the area of 3609 E. 38th St. for several hours that day." Appellant's App. Vol. V. p. 19. On March 23, 2022, the State charged Beavers in Cause Number 49D35-2203-F6-7881 ("Cause No. F6-7881") with one count of Level 6 felony public indecency. The next day, MCCC filed notices indicating that Beavers had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement in both Cause Nos. F6-4785 and F6-7123.
[¶6] During an April 27, 2022 hearing relating to all three cause numbers, the trial court, referring to the cases for which Beavers had been placed in community corrections, informed Beavers that Tr. p. 9. On October 24, 2022, Beavers pled guilty to public indecency in Cause No. F6-7881 and admitted that he had violated the terms of his community-corrections placement in Cause Nos. F6-4785 and F6-7123. The trial court accepted Beavers's guilty plea and admissions to the violation of the terms of his community-corrections placement. With respect to Cause No. F6-4785, the trial court revoked Beavers's community-corrections placement and sentenced him to forty-four days, with credit for forty-four days of time served. The trial court ordered that "that matter is discharged." Tr. p. 65. With respect to Cause No. F6-7123, the trial court revoked Beavers's community-corrections placement and imposed a 730-day executed sentence with credit for 324 days of time served. With regard to Cause No. F6-7881, the trial court found Beavers guilty and sentenced him to a 910-day executed sentence. The trial court ordered that the sentence in Cause No. F6-7881 "run consecutive to" Cause No. F6-7123. Tr. p. 65.
[¶7] Beavers contends that the trial court erred by failing to advise him "of the rights he waived when he admitted to violating the terms of his community[-]corrections placement" in Cause Nos. F6-4785 and F6-7123. Appellant's Br. p. 9. He also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him and that his sentence is inappropriate.
[¶8] 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. The similarities between the two dictate this approach. Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the Department of Correction and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court. A defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program. Rather, placement in either is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.
Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999).
[¶9] It is well-settled that while probationers are not entitled to the full array of constitutional rights afforded defendants at trial, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes procedural and substantive limits on the revocation of the conditional liberty created by probation. Id. In the probationrevocation context, this court has described a defendant's due-process rights as follows:
There are certain due process rights, of course, which inure to a probationer at a revocation hearing. These include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and a neutral and detached hearing body. Indiana Code [section] 35-38-2-3(d) . . . also ensures the probationer the right to confrontation, crossexamination, and representation by counsel.
Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 148 (Ind. 1992) (cleaned up).
[¶10] In Cox, the Indiana Supreme Court held "that the due process requirements expressed by this court for probation revocations are also required when the trial court revokes a defendant's placement in a community corrections program." 706 N.E.2d at 549.
As a result, a defendant in a community corrections program is entitled to representation by counsel, written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of the opposing evidence, an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses in a neutral hearing before the trial court.
[¶11] In both Hilligoss v. State, 45 N.E.3d 1228, 1232 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) and Saucerman v. State, 193 N.E.3d 1028, 1031 (Ind.Ct.App. 2022) we concluded that a trial court's failure to advise a probationer, who had admitted to having violated the terms of his or her probation, of the rights which the probationer waives by admitting to the violation amounts to a violation of the probationer's fundamental due process and entitles the probationer to a new hearing. Beavers points to these two cases in support of his claim that a new hearing is necessary because the trial court failed to properly advise him that he was waiving certain rights by admitting to the alleged violation of the terms of his communitycorrection placement. Beavers acknowledges that the trial court "repeatedly told [him that] his guilty plea [in Cause No. F6-7881] amounted to a community corrections violation," but argues that the trial court never informed him of "the separate rights and procedures that attach." Appellant's Br. p. 11.
[¶12] Specifically, Beavers asserts that he was not informed of his "right to a hearing on the violations." Appellant's Br. p. 12. A review of the record, however indicates otherwise. Again, the record reveals that Beavers was informed during the April 27, 2022 hearing that he had a...
To continue reading
Request your trial