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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT