Brad L. Sullivan v. State of Indiana
56 N.E.3d 1157
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Sullivan pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to multiple offenses and was sentenced to an aggregate two-year term with 18 months to be served on electronically monitored home detention through Decatur County Community Corrections and the balance on supervised probation.
- The plea agreement included a provision that if Sullivan violated community corrections rules (other than inability to pay due to changed economic circumstances), the remaining executed sentence would be served in jail.
- Sullivan failed to report to begin home detention on the required date (October 20, 2015). Community Corrections filed a petition to revoke placement.
- Sullivan testified he was hospitalized in mental-health facilities around the report date, had contacted counsel and believed counsel or his social worker would notify the court and Community Corrections, and that his home and phone were approved for home detention.
- The trial court found a violation and, relying on the plea agreement’s predetermined sanction, revoked community corrections placement and ordered execution of the 18-month sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the automatic-revocation provision and the sanction were improperly applied given mitigating evidence (hospitalization, attempted communications, and Community Corrections’ willingness to accept him).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community corrections placement | State: Sullivan violated his reporting condition and the plea agreement required execution of the sentence | Sullivan: Violation was excusable/mitigated by hospitalization, contact attempts, counsel’s supposed communications, and Community Corrections’ ability to accept him | Court: Reversed — abuse of discretion to revoke and order 18 months in DOC under these circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (placement in community corrections is within trial court's discretion)
- Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (revocation of community corrections treated like probation revocation)
- Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (two-step probation revocation framework; mitigating evidence may affect disposition)
- Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 2008) (automatic or "strict compliance" revocation clauses are constitutionally suspect; due process requires opportunity to present mitigating reasons)