ILNews

Man kicked out of community corrections for assaulting inmate loses appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A community corrections program has the authority to not accept a man after being released from prison because he kicked another inmate in the face while assigned to a community transition program, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday.

Floyd William Treece appealed the revocation of his community corrections placement. As part of his 14-year sentence for possessing drugs, Treece was to serve time in a community corrections program. He petitioned to be released to a community transition program for the last 120 days of his Department of Correction commitment. He was assigned to the CTP at Tippecanoe County Community Corrections.

But during his time in CTP, he kicked another man in the face after finding the man sitting in the chair where Treece was previously sitting. This was a violation of TCCC’s rule against assault and battery. He was kicked out of the CTP, and then TCCC refused to accept Treece once he was released from the DOC. The state petitioned for him to serve the rest of his sentence in the DOC and his community corrections placement be revoked. The trial court granted the petition.

In Floyd William Treece v. State of Indiana, 79A05-1309-CR-458, Treece argued that TCCC had no authority to reject him because a CTP is a DOC program; permissible DOC disciplinary actions are provided by statute; and such disciplinary actions do not include rejection from a community corrections program.

But CTP is operated by a community corrections program, per statute. That statute says while a person is assigned to CTP, he or she must comply with the rules that are adopted by the community corrections advisory board establishing the program. It does not matter that Treece was still committed to the DOC when he violated TCCC rules, Judge Terry Crone wrote.

The judges rejected Treece’s claim that I.C. 11-11-5 limits the authority of CTPs to impose their own disciplinary measures on a person in their programs who violates their rules. In fact, sections of the statute limit the actions the DOC may take against offenders while they are placed in or assigned to a CTP.

They also rejected Treece’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his placement in community corrections because the court didn’t take into account his achievements while in the DOC. But Treece did not merely break a rule; he engaged in an act of violence after minimal provocation, Crone wrote.

The COA remanded to the trial court to clarify Treece’s sentence because, as written, it appears his sentence will be 12 years, not the 14 years handed down.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT