MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case Summary
[1] Steven James Childress appeals the revocation of his probation and the sanction imposed. He presents the sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation and ordering that he serve 436 days of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction (“DOC”). We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On November 20, 2017, Childress was charged with Robbery, as a Level 2 felony,
1
and Battery, as a Level 5 felony.
2
On July 26, 2018, the State added a charge of Aggravated Battery, as a Level 3 felony.
3
On the same date, Childress pled guilty to the Level 3 felony and the other two charges were dismissed. On October 4, 2018, Childress was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, with six years to be served in the DOC and two years suspended to probation.
[3] On January 16, 2023, Childress was released from the DOC and began to serve his probationary term. Effective February 23, 2023, Childress was enrolled in a LaPorte County Re-entry Court program. However, he did not appear as ordered to commence his participation in the program. On May 10, the probation department filed a petition to revoke Childresss probation, alleging that Childress had failed to report for drug screening on April 14, 18, and 27 and on May 4 and 7, and that he had failed to call the drug screening program on April 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 and again on May 9.
[4] On November 3, at a probation revocation hearing, Childress admitted that the allegations of the probation revocation petition were true. He requested that he be allowed to be placed back in the Re-entry Court program to address his mental health and substance abuse issues. The trial court suspended Childresss probation and ordered that he serve the balance of his sentence, 436 days, in the DOC. Childress now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[5] “Placement under either probation or a community corrections program is ‘a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.’ ” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999)). We review probation violation determinations and sanctions for an abuse of discretion. Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). “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.” Id. (citations omitted). “As with other sufficiency issues, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses.” Jenkins v. State, 956 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation and quotation omitted), trans. denied.
[6] Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-3(h) provides:
If the court finds that the person has violated a condition at any time before termination of the period, and the petition to revoke is filed within the probationary period, the court may impose one (1) or more of the following sanctions:
(1) Continue the person on probation, with or without modifying or enlarging the conditions.
(2) Extend the persons probationary period for not more than one (1) year beyond the original probationary period.
(3) Order execution of all or part of the sentence that was suspended at the time of initial sentencing.
[7] A probation or community corrections placement revocation proceeding is a two-step process. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616. First, the trial court must determine whether the preponderance of the evidence showed that a probation violation occurred. Id.; I.C. § 35-38-2-3. Second, the trial court must determine whether the probation violation warrants revocation of probation or some lesser sanction. Heaton, 984 N.E.2d at 616.
[8] Childress does not deny that he violated the terms of his probation. Rather, he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by not affording him an additional opportunity to participate in the Re-entry Court program, because he “desperately wants help to address his mental health and substance abuse issues.” Appellants Brief at 8. However, Childress failed to report when he was deemed eligible for that program. And prior attempts at rehabilitation have been unsuccessful. Between the years of 2013 and 2017, Childress accumulated one felony and eight misdemeanor convictions. Fifteen petitions to revoke probation were filed in relation to the misdemeanor sentences. Childress also failed to appear in court on at least fifteen occasions. While he was incarcerated in the DOC, Childress enrolled in a program known as Recovery While Incarcerated. However, Childress was dismissed from this program because of conduct write-ups. The trial courts selection of a sanction was not clearly contrary to the facts and circumstances before the court.
Conclusion
[9] Childress violated the terms of his probation; accordingly, the trial court properly revoked Childresss probation. Childress has shown no abuse of discretion in the trial courts selection of the sanction imposed.
[10] Affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code § 35-42-5-1.
2
. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.
3
. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5.
Bailey, Judge.
Altice, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.