MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] The Madison Circuit Court found that Trevon Chapman violated the terms of his Continuum of Sanctions home detention placement and revoked that placement. Chapman appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve 463 days of his sentence in the Madison County Work Release Facility.
[2] We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] On June 13, 2023, the trial court convicted Chapman of Level 5 felony criminal confinement with bodily injury, Level 6 felony domestic battery, and Level 6 felony strangulation. The trial court imposed a five-year sentence with one year suspended. The court ordered Chapman to serve his sentence in the Madison County Community Corrections (“MCCC”) Continuum of Sanction program with the beginning of his placement to be determined by the program. Shortly thereafter, Chapman began serving his sentence on home detention. The court also issued a no-contact order preventing Chapman from communicating with Ebone Swain, the victim of the domestic battery offense.
[4] On October 4, 2023, MCCC asked the trial court to terminate Chapman from the Continuum of Sanctions Program because he had tested positive for cannabinoids, committed the new offense of Level 6 domestic battery, and failed to meet his financial obligations to the program. The court granted MCCCs petition and issued an order to incarcerate Chapman. The next day, the probation department filed a notice that Chapman had also violated the terms of his suspended sentence. On November 13, 2023, MCCC filed a second notice alleging that, on October 10, Chapman committed Class A misdemeanor and Level 6 felony invasion of privacy.
[5] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on January 9, 2024. The State presented evidence that Chapman had violated the no-contact order. Specifically, Chapman had used another inmates PIN to place several phone calls to Swain between October 10 and 24, 2023. The court found that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Chapman had committed invasion of privacy, and, therefore, he had violated the terms of his community corrections placement.
[6] Before imposing sentence, the trial court observed that misdemeanor invasion of privacy is “not a terribly [ ] serious offense in the hierarchy of offenses ․” Tr. p. 104. However, the court noted that Chapman had ignored a court order and tried to “manipulate the outcome of this case” by contacting the victim. Id. The court then stated that, although the offense was minor, Chapmans violation was serious. Id. Therefore, the trial court revoked 463 days of Chapmans placement and ordered him to serve his sentence in the Madison County Work Release Facility. Chapman was given credit for 98 days served and 33 days of good time credit, leaving a balance of 332 days. Upon completing his work release sentence, the trial court ordered Chapman to return to Continuum of Sanctions for the remainder of his original sentence.
[7] Chapman now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[8] Chapman does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation. Rather, he claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his Continuum of Sanctions home detention placement and ordered him to serve 463 days in a work release facility.
[9] Placement in community corrections is a “matter of grace” and a “conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.” Toomey v. State, 887 N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quoting Million v. State, 646 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995)). Further, “[b]oth probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to commitment in the DOC and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court.” Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). This Court treats a petition to revoke placement in a community corrections program the same as a petition to revoke probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). Moreover, it is well-settled that
[i]t is within the discretion of the trial court to determine probation conditions and to revoke probation if the conditions are violated. In appeals from trial court probation violation determinations and sanctions, we review for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs where the 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) (quotation and citations omitted).
[10] Chapman argues that “this was his first violation,” and, therefore, “he should have been given another opportunity on” Continuum of Sanctions. Appellants Br. at 9. However, Chapmans violation of the terms of his placement was significant. The trial court ordered Chapman incarcerated pursuant to MCCCs request because it alleged that Chapman had violated the terms of his home detention placement. During his incarceration, he violated the courts no-contact order and contacted Swain multiple times. He also used a fellow inmates PIN to attempt to conceal his offense.
[11] Chapman blatantly disregarded the trial courts no-contact order and the terms of his Continuum of Sanctions placement. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Chapmans placement and ordered him to serve 463 days of his sentence in the Madison County Work Release Facility.
[12] Affirmed.
Mathias, Judge.
Altice, C.J., and Bailey, J., concur.