20A05-1708-CR-1887
Ind. Ct. App.Jan 24, 2018Background
- Bonita Richardson pleaded guilty to Level 6 felony fraud and was sentenced to 910 days: 730 days to Elkhart County Community Corrections (ECCC) with work release, and 180 days suspended to probation.
- She received a work-release pass on Jan 19, 2017, failed to return the next day, and was absent for two months. ECCC filed a violation requesting revocation.
- While a warrant issued and a new charge was filed for Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention, Richardson admitted the ECCC violation and pleaded guilty to the new charge.
- At sentencing she explained she left due to flashbacks and not taking medication; she did not notify staff or seek help before leaving.
- The trial court revoked her ECCC placement and executed the balance of the 910-day sentence to the DOC; it also sentenced her to an advisory one-year term for the failure-to-return conviction, consecutive to the existing term, and ordered a DOC mental-health assessment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation of ECCC placement and execution to the DOC was erroneous | State: revocation proper after violation and ECCC requested revocation | Richardson: trial court chose the harshest option despite admission and mental-health disclosure | Court: No error; revocation permissible and not against facts/circumstances |
| Whether the trial court erred by not finding mental-health history as a mitigating factor | Richardson: her longstanding mental-health issues should mitigate sentence | State: limited evidence of nexus/control; court has discretion on weight | Court: No error; evidence was limited and did not clearly support mitigation |
| Whether the one-year sentence for failure to return is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | Richardson: sentence length/location (DOC) inappropriate given nonviolent nature and mental-health needs | State: prior alternatives failed; DOC can address mental health; advisory term appropriate | Court: Sentence not inappropriate given offense, criminal history, and poor work-release record |
| Whether Rule 7(B) review applies to the executed remainder of the original 910-day term | Richardson: challenges placement to DOC as part of punishment | State: post-sentence probation revocation not a Rule 7(B) sentence | Court: Rule 7(B) inapplicable to executed remainder; review limited to one-year new sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Monroe v. State, 899 N.E.2d 688 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (trial courts have broad discretion to place defendants in community corrections)
- McCauley v. State, 22 N.E.3d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (standard of review for revocation of community corrections akin to probation revocation)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for assessing sentencing errors and mitigating/aggravating factors)
- Ousley v. State, 807 N.E.2d 758 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (guidance on when mental illness warrants mitigating weight)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review principles)
- Chambers v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. 2013) (role of appellate review in sentencing)
- Biddinger v. State, 868 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 2007) (consideration of confinement location under Rule 7(B))
- Milliner v. State, 890 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (post-sentence probation violation actions are not Rule 7(B) sentences)