Termination of drug court placement over missed therapy affirmed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who missed several drug court mental health therapy sessions failed on appeal to prove she was wrongly terminated from the problem-solving court.

Ann Withers was charged under separate causes with seven methamphetamine- and neglect-related counts, and she agreed to plead guilty to Class B felony dealing in methamphetamine, Class D felony possession of two or more chemical reagents or precursors, and Class D felony neglect of a dependent. She was sentenced to an executed prison term of five-and-a-half years, which was stayed based on her successful completion of Madison County’s Drug Court program.

While Withers had failed no drug screens, her case manager testified she missed three mental health therapy sessions in December 2013, eight months into the program. The manager filed a termination request with electronic signatures of social workers issuing the reports, after which the judge granted the termination request and reinstated the sentence.

"(E)ven if the trial court had erred in judicially noticing the Attendance Reports, any error was harmless," Judge Terry Crone wrote for the panel in Ann Withers v. State of Indiana,  48A02-1403-CR-130. The case manager "testified that Withers missed several therapy sessions, and Withers testified that she had attendance issues. Thus, there was independent evidence of Withers’s violations of the Drug Court program.”

Likewise, there was no abuse of discretion in reinstatement of the sentence, because the sentencing order provided the stay on executing the sentence would be lifted if Withers failed to complete her drug court program.

“Pursuant to the plea agreement, upon termination of her participation, the trial court was required to lift the stay and reinstate her sentences," Crone wrote. "Therefore, we affirm."



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  2. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.

  3. maybe if some of the socia workers would treat the foster parents better, they would continue to fostr.

  4. We have been asked to take in a 2 no old baby because mother is in very unstable situation. We want to do this but will need help with expenses such as medical and formula... Do we have to have custody thru court?

  5. Very troubling. A competent public defender is very much the right of every indigent person in the US or the Fifth amendment becomes meaningless. And considering more and more of us are becoming poorer and poorer under this "system," the need for this are greater than ever.... maybe they should study the Federals and see how they manage their program? And here's to thanking all the PD attorneys out there who do a good job.