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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT