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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT