Madden v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 39A01–1404–CR–173.,39A01–1404–CR–173. |
| Citation | 25 N.E.3d 791 |
| Parties | Chad A. MADDEN, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Jason J. Pattison, Jenner Pattison Hensley & Wynn, LLP, Madison, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Brian Reitz, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
MATHIAS
, Judge.
[1] Chad A. Madden (“Madden”) appeals the order of the Jefferson Superior Court denying his motion to correct error which claimed that the trial court had improperly delegated to the Community Corrections program the authority to decide whether Madden should be subject to electronic monitoring.
[2] We affirm.
[3] On June 28, 2011, pursuant to a plea agreement, Madden pled guilty to one count of Class D felony receiving stolen property in Cause No. 39D01–1006–FB–487 (“Cause No. 487”). The trial court accepted the plea agreement and imposed a three-year suspended sentence. Nine months later, on March 13, 2012, the State charged Madden with one count of Class A misdemeanor check deception in Cause No. 39D01–1203–CM–305 (“Cause No. 305”).
[4] On June 7, 2012—at which time Madden was on probation in Cause No. 487, and his charges under Cause No. 305 were pending—security cameras recorded him stealing several cartons of cigarettes from a gas station in Hanover, Indiana. The next day, when police officers attempted to arrest Madden, he fled on foot and, after a brief chase, had to be subdued with a taser. After Madden was apprehended, the police discovered methamphetamine and methadone in his possession. Accordingly, on June 11, 2012, the State charged Madden in Cause No. 39D01–1206–FB–721 (“Cause No. 721”) as follows: Count I, Class B felony possession of methamphetamine; Count II, Class C felony possession of a controlled substance; Count III, Class D felony theft; Count IV, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; and Count V, Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. In addition, the State filed a petition to revoke Madden's probation in Cause No. 487.
[5] On March 6, 2013, Madden entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he pleaded guilty to the reduced charge of Class D felony possession of methamphetamine in Cause No. 721, Class A misdemeanor check deception in Cause No. 305, and admitted that he violated his probation in Cause No. 487. The trial court accepted the plea agreement and, per its terms, sentenced Madden to three years for possession of methamphetamine, one year for check deception, and reinstated his three-year suspended sentence for the probation violation—all to be fully executed and served consecutively. In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court also referred Madden to the “Purposeful Incarceration” program, with the recommendation that he be placed in the Therapeutic Community Program (“TCP”) at Branchville Correctional Facility. The Department of Correction (“DOC”) subsequently assigned Madden to Branchville, and on April 22, 2013, he enrolled in the TCP.
[6] Another provision of the plea agreement stipulated that upon his successful completion of the TCP, Madden could petition the trial court for a sentence modification. On December 18, 2013, Madden filed a petition to modify his sentence based on his completion of the TCP program. The trial court held a hearing on Madden's sentence modification petition on February 19, 2014, and issued an order that same day granting the petition. In its sentence modification order, the trial court found that the sentences under Cause No. 487 and Cause No. 305 had been fully served. The court then suspended the remaining sentence under Cause No. 721 to supervised probation. The trial court also ordered Madden:
to report to the Jefferson County Community Corrections Department as a specific term of probation with determination of appropriate program to be made by the Community Corrections Department, and shall include all other terms of probation as outlined in the Terms of Supervised Probation With Community Corrections Placement prepared by the Court, read to the defendant at this hearing, and filed in this matter.
Appellant's App. p. 98. In relevant part, the Terms of Probation instructed Madden to:
Appellant's App. p. 94 (emphasis added). The Terms of Probation further notified Madden that a violation of the electronic monitoring rules could result in a criminal charge for escape; that he was obligated to abide by a schedule prepared by Community Corrections and to communicate any changes in that schedule with Community Corrections; that he must maintain a working land-line telephone at his house; and that he would be responsible for payment of all applicable electronic monitoring fees. At the modification hearing, Madden acknowledged that he understood and agreed to comply with the Terms of Probation.
[7] On March 19, 2014, Madden filed a motion to correct error. He alleged that the trial court improperly delegated its authority by allowing Community Corrections to decide whether—and for what duration—he should be placed on electronic monitoring as a condition of his probation.1 On March 21, 2014, the trial court denied his motion without a hearing. Madden now appeals.
[8] Madden claims that the trial court erred in setting the conditions of his probation. We first note that he is appealing from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct error. On review, our court will uphold a trial court's ruling on a motion to correct error absent an abuse of discretion. Nichols v. State, 947 N.E.2d 1011, 1015 (Ind.Ct.App.2011)
, reh'g denied. The trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances, or when the trial court misinterprets the law. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind.2013). To the extent that Madden has presented any issues that involve questions of law, our review is de novo.
[9] We also note that trial courts are vested with broad discretion in establishing the terms of probation, which are subject to review only for an abuse of discretion. Berry v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1243, 1247 (Ind.2014)
. Probation conditions “must be reasonably related to the treatment of the defendant and the protection of public safety.” Hurd v. State, 9 N.E.3d 720, 726(Ind.Ct.App.2014). Accordingly, our task on review is to consider whether the conditions imposed on the defendant “are reasonably related to attaining these goals.” Id. Although probation and community corrections programs are not precisely the same, they are treated the same for many purposes. McQueen v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1237, 1243 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). Both probation and community corrections serve as alternatives to commitment to the DOC; they both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court; a defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either, and placement is a “matter of grace” and a “favor, not a right”; and the due process rights for revocation of community corrections placement and probation hearings are the same. Id.
[10] Madden claims that the trial court erred by delegating to Community Corrections the authority to determine if, and for how long, he should be placed on home detention. Home detention, he claims, is a “materially punitive” condition of probation that must be determined by the trial court, not Community Corrections. Madden notes that Indiana Code section 35–38–2–1(a)(1)
provides that the trial court “shall ... specify in the record the conditions of the probation.” He also observes that, as a condition of probation, “the court may require a person to ... undergo home detention under IC 35–38–2.5.” Ind.Code § 35–38–2–2.3(a)(16) (emphasis added). Madden reads these provisions to mean that only the trial court may determine if and for how long he should be subject to home detention. We do not agree.
[11] Although trial courts are indeed required by statute to set forth the terms of probation, they also have authority to allow Community Corrections programs to supervise various aspects of probation. For example, a trial court may order a probationer to home detention supervised by a Community Corrections program. Ind.Code § 35–38–2.5–5(c)
. A trial court may also order a probationer subject to such home detention to abide by a schedule prepared by the Community Corrections program. Ind.Code § 35–38–2.5–6(3). More importantly, when supervising a probationer on home detention, Community Corrections programs are specifically required by statute to “set the monitoring device2 and surveillance equipment to minimize the possibility that the offender or alleged offender can enter another residence or structure without a violation.” Ind.Code § 35–38–2.5–10(d)
.
[12] Here, the trial court ordered, as a condition of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frazzini v. State
...it is not as though Frazzini has shown that his placement offers no options to address addiction. See generally Madden v. State , 25 N.E.3d 791, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (noting that placement outside of the Department of Correction is a matter of grace and a favor, not a right), trans. den......
-
Frazzini v. State
...it is not as though Frazzini has shown that his placement offers no options to address addiction. See generally Madden v. State, 25 N.E.3d 791, 795 (Ind.Ct.App. 2015) (noting that placement outside of the Department of Correction is a matter of grace and a favor, not a right), trans. denied......
-
Frazzini v. State
...it is not as though Frazzini has shown that his placement offers no options to address addiction. See generally Madden v. State, 25 N.E.3d 791, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (noting that placement outside of the Department of Correction is a matter of grace and a favor, not a right), trans. deni......
-
Morgan v. State
...revocation of placement, it remains the trial court's duty to determine whether revocation will be ordered. See Madden v. State, 25 N.E.3d 791, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (trial courts set the terms of community corrections but the program has authority to supervise those terms), trans. denie......