Bradley L. Stout, Jr. v. State of Indiana

MoreLaw Suites

601 South Boulder, Suite 600 918-582-3993

On May 8, 2013, Stout was placed in a work release program as a pretrial

placement for a prior offense. However, Stout fled from that placement on May

27. Accordingly, the State charged him with escape, as a Class C felony.

Thereafter, Stout entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead

guilty to failure to return to lawful detention, as a Class D felony. On August

12, the court accepted Stout’s guilty plea and sentenced him to three years

suspended to probation.

1

[4] Just over one month later, on September 20, the State filed a notice of probation

violation in which it alleged that Stout had failed a drug test. The State later

amended that notice to include allegations that Stout had failed another drug

1

In the same plea agreement, Stout pleaded guilty to conversion, as a Class A misdemeanor, for the prior

offense. The court sentenced Stout to one year suspended to probation for that offense, which sentence was

to run consecutive to his sentence for failure to return to lawful detention.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-954 | August 27, 2020 Page 3 of 7

test, failed to enroll in a drug program, failed to submit to drug screens, and

committed invasion of privacy. Stout admitted to the allegations, and the court

returned him to probation. On November 10, 2014, the State filed another

notice of probation violation and alleged that Stout had tested positive for

illegal drugs on several occasions, failed to report to work, and failed to engage

in a drug program. Stout again admitted to the violations, and the court

ordered him to participate in a jail linkage program. Stout successfully

completed that program, and the court returned him to probation.

[5] Thereafter, on March 14, 2016, the State filed another notice of probation

violation. In that notice, the State alleged that Stout had violated the terms of

his probation when he committed theft and possession of a controlled

substance. In a plea agreement, Stout admitted that he had violated the terms

of his probation. The court returned Stout to probation.

[6] Then, in 2017, the State alleged that Stout had again violated the terms of his

probation when he missed thirteen drug screens, failed drug tests, and failed to

report to probation. On November 20, Stout failed to appear for a hearing. As

a result, the trial court issued an arrest warrant, which remained active for two

years until it was served on September 26, 2019. The court then held a factfinding hearing on the State’s petition on October 28. Following the hearing,

the court found that Stout had violated the terms of his probation and ordered

him to serve the remainder of his sentence on work release.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-954 | August 27, 2020 Page 4 of 7

[7] On March 12, 2020, the State filed a petition to revoke Stout’s placement on

work release. In that petition, the State alleged that Stout had committed

thirteen violations. Specifically, the State alleged that Stout had: tested positive

for drugs on three occasions; been in unauthorized areas; possessed a lighter on

multiple occasions; been disrespectful to a corrections officer; failed to

participate in a mandatory cleaning; possessed a cigarette; possessed a “green

leafy synthetic lookalike substance”; and failed to submit to a drug test.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 108.

[8] Following a hearing, the court found that Stout had violated the terms of his

placement. The court then stated that it did not “have a lot of choices here. I

don’t have work release available . . . . I don’t have in-home detention

available. I don’t have DOC available. You are doing an executed sentence.

There’s no probation on this. I’m not going to return you to probation.” Tr. at

52. Accordingly, the court ordered Stout to serve the balance of his previously

suspended sentence in the Vigo County Jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Stout appeals the trial court’s order that he serve the balance of his previously

suspended sentence. We begin by noting that 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). 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).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-954 | August 27, 2020 Page 5 of 7

[10] This Court treats a petition to revoke placement in a community corrections

program the same as a petition to revoke probation. See Cox v. State, 706

N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). Upon finding that a defendant has violated a

condition of his placement, the trial court may “revoke the placement and

commit the person to the county jail or department of correction for the

remainder of the person’s sentence.” Ind. Code § 35-38.2.6-5(a)(4) (2020). We

review the trial court’s sentencing decision following the revocation of

probation for an abuse of discretion. Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485, 489 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2006). An abuse of discretion occurs “only where the trial court’s

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances”

before the court. Robinson v. State, 91 N.E.3d 574, 577 (Ind. 2018) (per curiam).

[11] On appeal, Stout does not dispute that he repeatedly violated the conditions of

his probation and work release program. Instead, he asserts that the trial court

abused its discretion when it ordered him to serve the balance of his previously

suspended sentence because his placement was only revoked due to “several

technical violations,” and because he was not taking his “mental health

medication” at the time he entered the work release program. Appellant’s App.

at 9. He further asserts that the mother of his children had become unemployed

“as a result of the shuttering of businesses during the pandemic” and that he

needed to work to support their children. Id. at 9-10. In essence, he maintains

that, “[g]iven the nonviolent and minor nature” of his original offense and

subsequent violations, “and considering the risk inmates face[] from the

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-954 | August 27, 2020 Page 6 of 7

coronavirus while incarcerated,” the court should have placed him back on

probation. Id. at 10.

[12] But the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and was

within the court’s discretion. From the time the court placed Stout on

probation, he repeatedly violated the terms of his placement. Indeed, the State

filed numerous notices of probation violations between September 20, 2013,

which was just over one month after he was initially placed on probation, and

2016 for allegations that included failed drug tests, missed drug tests, failure to

engage in a drug treatment program, and the commission of new crimes. But

each time, the court showed leniency and returned him to probation.

[13] Then, in 2017, the State filed another notice of probation violation after Stout

missed drug screens, failed drug screens, and failed to report to probation.

Stout failed to appear for a hearing, and the court issued an arrest warrant,

which remained active for two years. Once Stout finally appeared before the

court, the court again found that he had violated the terms of his probation and

placed him in a work release program. Less than six months later, Stout

committed thirteen more acts that each constituted a violation of his placement.

In other words, since the case began in 2013, the trial court repeatedly showed

Stout leniency and gave him opportunities to avoid incarceration, but Stout

continued to violate the terms of his placement.

[14] We acknowledge that the coronavirus has caused a global pandemic and has

resulted in millions of people, including the mother of Stout’s children, losing

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-954 | August 27, 2020 Page 7 of 7

their jobs. However, that does not change the fact that Stout had numerous

opportunities to avoid incarceration and remain working to support his family.

Instead, Stout chose to repeatedly violate the terms of his placement. The

court’s order that he serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence is

supported by the record and was well within the trial court’s discretion. We

affirm the court’s judgment.

Affirmed