Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana
10 N.E.3d 52
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Treece pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (Class D) and possession of an illegal drug lab (Class C) and admitted habitual-offender status; aggregate sentence 14 years with portions executed at DOC, participation in Tippecanoe County Community Corrections (TCCC), and suspension to probation.
- Sentencing order directed eight years at DOC including two years with TCCC and four years suspended to supervised probation; Court later approved Treece’s request for assignment to a 120-day Community Transition Program (CTP) at TCCC before DOC release.
- While assigned to TCCC’s CTP, Treece kicked another person in the face in a dayroom; TCCC held a hearing, found a rule violation for assault and battery (Rule 212), removed him from the CTP, and declared a policy rejecting any participant who fights from future TCCC programs.
- Upon DOC release, TCCC refused to accept Treece for the community-corrections portion of his sentence; the State moved to revoke his community-corrections placement and commit him to DOC custody for the remaining term.
- The trial court granted the State’s motion; Treece appealed, arguing (1) TCCC lacked authority to reject him for conduct during a DOC CTP because CTPs are DOC programs and DOC disciplinary statutes do not authorize rejection from community corrections, and (2) the court erred by not considering his rehabilitation progress.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held CTPs are community-corrections programs (not DOC programs), TCCC had authority to remove/reject Treece for the rule violation, and the trial court did not abuse discretion in revocation; the case was remanded for sentencing clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Treece) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TCCC could reject Treece from community corrections based on a rule violation committed while assigned to a CTP | Trial court may revoke placement before it begins; conduct while in CTP supports denial of placement | CTP is a DOC program; DOC statutory disciplinary rules apply and do not authorize rejection from community corrections | CTPs are community corrections programs; statute authorizes CTPs/CCPs to adopt rules and remove/discipline participants; TCCC had authority to reject Treece |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by not considering Treece’s rehabilitative progress before revoking placement | Revocation is discretionary; single violation (violent act) is sufficient to revoke; court need not balance mitigating achievements | Court should consider GED, program completion, employment, and other progress as mitigating | Court need not balance aggravating/mitigating factors in revocation; violent single act warranted revocation; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether sentence wording created a sentencing-error ambiguity requiring clarification | N/A (issue raised by court) | N/A | Remanded for the trial court to clarify the executed/suspended terms because the sentencing language created inconsistencies about total executed time |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashba v. State, 570 N.E.2d 937 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court may revoke probation/placement for conduct occurring before placement begins)
- Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (placement in community corrections may be revoked for conduct occurring during prior custodial status)
- Sanders v. State, 825 N.E.2d 952 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (probation revocation is two-step: factual finding of violation then discretionary determination whether revocation warranted)
- Leedy v. State, 998 N.E.2d 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (statutory interpretation review de novo; examine plain language to determine legislative intent)
- Gosha v. State, 873 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (single condition violation is sufficient to revoke placement)