Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1832 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.3d 722 (Table) |
| Parties | Quintin Delany JACKSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: David W. Stone IV, Anderson, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Caroline G. Templeton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] The trial court revoked Quintin Delany Jackson's ("Jackson") participation in a community corrections program and revoked 916 days of Jackson's work release to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction ("DOC"). Jackson appeals the revocation and sentence and raises two issues, which we restate as:
[2] We affirm.
[3] On October 27, 2015, police received a report that Jackson and another person held two women at gunpoint in the parking lot of the Hoosier Park Casino and demanded money. Appellant's Conf. App. Vol. II at 26. That same day the State charged Jackson with robbery as a Level 3 felony. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 2. On March 13, 2017, Jackson pleaded guilty as charged pursuant to a plea agreement, which capped his executed time in DOC at five years. Id. at 60. On April 17, 2017, the trial court sentenced Jackson to ten years, with three years of his executed time suspended to probation and two years of his executed time to be served in community corrections, specifically, the Continuum of Sanctions Program ("COS"), a form of work release in Madison County Community Corrections. Id. at 82, 87. The COS Board officially approved Jackson's participation in that program on January 8, 2020. Id. at 121.
[4] Just eleven weeks later, on March 26, 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke Jackson's COS privileges, alleging Jackson violated COS rules by: 1) testing positive for synthetic cannabinoids; 2) having time away from the work release facility for which he had not accounted; and 3) being in arrears on his financial obligations to the Madison County Community Justice Center ("MCCJC"). Id. at 124. On April 20, April 30, May 6, 8, and 11, 2020, the State filed amended petitions to revoke Jackson's participation in COS based on new allegations of unaccounted time and another positive drug test for synthetic cannabinoids. Id. at 129, 131-35, 138-39. On May 18, 2020, the trial court found that Jackson violated the terms of his work release because he had positive drug screens, had six separate instances of unaccounted time, and was disrespectful to an officer. Id. at 142. The trial court "revoke[d] eighteen days to the Madison County Detention Center." Id. It also revoked "365 days previously suspended to COS." Id. The trial court concluded that Jackson had 916 days left to serve on community corrections, followed by two years on probation. Id. Jackson was returned to work release on May 27, 2020. Id. at 146.
[5] On July 29, 2020, the State filed a new petition to revoke Jackson's participation in COS, alleging that: 1) Jackson had time unaccounted for on July 15-18, 28, 2020, including more than nine hours of unaccounted time on July 15, more than eight hours of unaccounted time on July 28, and more than five hours of unaccounted time on July 16; 2) on July 20, Jackson returned to the work release facility nearly two hours late from an approved pass; 3) on July 24, Jackson committed failure to return to lawful detention1 as a Level 6 felony; 4) on July 28, Jackson was "under the influence," and 5) Jackson owed $2,185 to MCCJC. Id. at 148. On August 5, 2020, the State filed a notice of probation violation, alleging that Jackson failed to complete COS. Id. at 154.
[6] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 2020. Tr. Vol. I at 2. At the beginning of the hearing, the State asked the trial court to take judicial notice of Jackson's case file. Id. at 6-7. Shawn Sheppard ("Sheppard"), the work release coordinator, testified that Jackson had permission to leave the work release facility on July 15, 2020 to go to his job, but because Jackson did not provide documentation to show that he was actually at work, the time Jackson was away was treated as unaccounted time. Id. at 7-9. Jackson had permission to leave the work release facility on July 16, but he returned late and provided no documentation to confirm his whereabouts. Id. at 10. On July 17, Jackson was granted a pass to cash a check and obtain a money order, but he returned late and without the money order. Id. at 11. On July 18, Jackson was granted a pass to pick up a check, but he returned late. Id. at 11-12. On July 20, Jackson reported that he had an appointment with a lawyer but did not provide documentation to confirm that he had actually met with the lawyer. Id. at 12.
[7] Jackson participated in programs offered by Man4Man,2 which included job placement services. Id. at 14, 30. On July 24, 2020, Jackson was allowed to go to Man4Man and was required to return to the work release facility by 10:00 a.m. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 165. Jackson left the Man4Man facility at 9:00 a.m. but did not return to the work release facility by 10:00 a.m. Tr. Vol. I at 14. Jackson's case manager called and spoke to Jackson at 11:00 a.m. and directed Jackson to return to the work release facility. Appellant's App. Vol. II at 165. Jackson told his case manager that "he was dealing with some issues and was talking to his mother." Id. Another staff member spoke with Jackson at about noon and told Jackson to return to the facility. Id. at 164. Jackson finally returned to the work release facility at 2:15 p.m. Tr. Vol. I at 14. As a result of this incident, Jackson was charged with failure to return to lawful detention as a Level 6 felony. Id. at 170.
[8] On July 28, Jackson was provided a pass to look for a job. Id. at 173. When he returned to the work release facility, Jackson was unable to document his whereabouts and refused to tell staff members where he had been. Tr. Vol. I at 14. When he returned, Jackson was "under the influence of [an unknown] substance." Id. at 15; Appellant's App. Vol. II at 166. That day, Jackson made a payment toward his arrearage with MCCJC. Tr. Vol. I at 13.
[9] At the end of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the State met its burden to prove that Jackson violated the terms of his work release and probation. Id. at 24-25. The trial court noted that the violations the State proved at the evidentiary hearing were similar to Jackson's behaviors that led to the trial court's early finding that Jackson had violated the terms of COS. Id. at 33. The court revoked 916 days of work release and ordered those days to be served in the DOC and left intact Jackson's probationary period of two years. Id. at 34; Appellant's App. Vol. II at 21. Jackson now appeals.
[10] Jackson contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the State proved by a preponderance of evidence that he violated the requirements of the COS program. "Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment to the [DOC] and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court." Cox v. State , 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). Because of similarities between community corrections and probation, the "standard of review for revocation of a community corrections placement is the same standard as for a probation revocation." Bennett v. State , 119 N.E.3d 1057, 1058 (Ind. 2019). That is, we review for an abuse of discretion, which occurs "when the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances." Id.
[11] Revocation of a community corrections placement is a two-step process, in which the trial court first makes a factual determination as to whether the defendant violated the terms of his placement or probation. Treece v. State , 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied ; Woods v. State , 892 N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). Because such a proceeding is civil in nature, the State need only prove the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence. Holmes v. State , 923 N.E.2d 479, 485 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). If a violation is found, the court then determines whether the violation warrants revocation. Woods , 892 N.E.2d at 640. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to permit a revocation. Beeler v. State , 959 N.E.2d 828, 830 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. As with probationers, those who are placed in community corrections are subject to the conditions of that placement; if they violate those terms and conditions, the community corrections director may change the terms, continue the placement, reassign the person, or ask the trial court to revoke the person's placement. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-5(a).
[12] In more specific terms, Jackson contends that the State failed to present sufficient evidence regarding some of its allegations, specifically that: 1) Jackson committed a criminal offense while on community corrections; 2) Jackson failed to pay fees to MCCJC even though he had the financial means to do so; and 3) on July 28, 2020, when Jackson returned to the work release facility from a job search, he was under the influence of an illegal substance. However, Jackson does not dispute that the State presented sufficient evidence to prove the other violations it had alleged: 1) Jackson had unaccounted time from the work release facility for July 15-18, and 28, 2020, including more than nine hours of unaccounted time on July 15, more than eight hours of unaccounted time on July 28, and more than five hours of unaccounted time on July 16; 2) on July 20, Jackson returned to the work release facility nearly two hours late from an...
To continue reading
Request your trial