Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles J. Norton,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

November 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-857

Appeal from the Vigo Superior 

Court

The Honorable John T. Roach, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

84D01-1712-F6-4235

May, Judge.

[1] Charles J. Norton appeals the revocation of his direct placement in community 

corrections work release. Norton appeals the admission of drug screen results, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 2 of 7

which he claims were unreliable, and argues the State presented insufficient 

evidence to revoke his placement without those results. Because his arguments 

fail, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 27, 2017, the State charged Norton with two counts of Level 6 

felony intimidation.

1

 Norton pled guilty to one count of intimidation on June 

6, 2019. Following a sentencing hearing, the court entered the conviction as

Class A misdemeanor intimidation,

2 dismissed the second intimidation charge, 

and imposed a one-year sentence “executed as a direct commitment to Vigo 

County Community Corrections In Home Detention.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. 

II at 70.) On February 12, 2020, Norton requested to be placed in work release

rather than in home detention, and the trial court approved the modification of 

his placement.

[3] On March 2, 2020, the State petitioned to revoke Norton’s direct placement and 

place Norton in either jail or the Department of Correction (“DOC”). The 

petition alleged the following violations:

a. That on January 30th, 2020- Mr. Norton received a report of 

conduct for violation of rule 202 (B), Possession/Use of 

Controlled Substance. Mr. Norton provided VCCC with a drug 

1 Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1.

2 Ind. Code § 35-45-2-1; Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 3 of 7

screen positive for Amphetamines (8700 ng/ml) and 

Methamphetamines (4000 ng/ml). He received recommended 

earned credit time deprivation of 7 days (suspended).

b. That on February 3rd, 2020- Mr. Norton received a report of 

conduct for violation of rule 203 (B), Refusal to Submit to 

Testing. Mr. Norton did not report to VCCC for a required drug 

screen. He received imposition of suspended sanction of 7 days 

earned credit time loss.

c. That on February 7th, 2020- Mr. Norton received a report of 

conduct for violation of rule 202 (B), Possession/Use of 

Controlled Substance. Mr. Norton provided VCCC with a drug 

screen positive for Amphetamine (3835 ng/ml) and 

Methamphetamine (2000ng/ml). He received recommended 

earned credit time deprivation of 14 days (suspended).

d. That on March 2nd, 2020-Mr. Norton’s fees are in arrears in 

the amount of $295.00, which is a violation of rule #1, Fees.

e. That on March 2nd, 2020- Mr. Norton was arrested from the 

Work Release Facility due to him having possession of two 

Alprazolam 1mg pills that [were] found hidden in his inhaler 

during a search before entering the facility. 

(Id. at 76-77.) 

[4] The trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition on March 13, 2020. Abby 

Shidler, Community Corrections case manager for Norton, testified that all of 

the State’s allegations were true. Norton failed to appear for a required drug 

screen on February 3, 2020. (Tr. Vol. II at 7-8.) Norton tested positive for 

methamphetamines and amphetamines on January 30 and February 7, 2020. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 4 of 7

(See Ex. 2 & Ex. 3.) As of the hearing, Norton was $295.00 in arrears on 

Community Corrections fees, which violated the Community Corrections rules. 

(Tr. Vol. II at 8.) Finally, Norton was arrested on March 2, 2020, at the

Community Corrections Work Release facility because he had two blue oval 

pills, later identified as Alprazolam, a controlled substance, hidden inside his 

inhaler. (See Tr. Vol. II at 8-9 & Ex. 1.) At the end of the hearing, the trial 

court found “the evidence establishes a violation.” (Tr. Vol. II at 16.) The 

court revoked Norton’s direct placement and ordered Norton to serve the 

remainder of his sentence in the Vigo County Jail. 

Discussion and Decision 

1. Admission of Evidence

[5] Norton challenges the admission of drug test results. We review a trial court’s 

admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Votra v. State, 121 N.E.3d 

1108, 1113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). An abuse of discretion occurs when the 

court’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances” that were before the court. Id. In probation revocation 

proceedings, the rules of evidence, except for those involving privileges, do not 

apply. Ind. Evid. R. 101(d)(2). Thus, “courts may admit evidence during 

probation revocation hearings that would not be permitted in a full-blown 

criminal trial.” Reyes v. State, 868 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2007). 

[6] In particular, Norton asserts:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 5 of 7

[T]he trial court admitted the drug screen results into evidence 

based on Shidler’s testimony that the community corrections 

program had used Norcem Sentry in the past for drug analysis 

and that their results had been reliable. The problem, however, is 

that the drug analyses in this case were not conducted by Norcem 

Sentry but by Cordant Forensic Solutions. There was no 

evidence presented at all about Cordant, the lab’s reliability, etc. 

Shidler did not conduct the drug analyses in this case and 

provided no personal knowledge about the reliability of the 

results.

(Br. of Appellant at 10 (internal citations omitted).) This objection to the 

admission of the results, however, was not raised at the revocation hearing and, 

as such, it is waived for appeal. See Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 

2011) (“a defendant may not argue one ground for an objection to the 

admission of evidence at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal”). 

[7] Waiver notwithstanding, the State responded to this novel argument on appeal 

by providing citation to a news release indicating that Norchem Laboratory, 

which “specializes in the criminal justice industry with a unique substance 

abuse case management program known as Norchem SentryTM,” had become 

part of the Cordant Solutions network. https://perma.cc/59E8-SWFH. As 

such, Norton has not demonstrated the trial court committed error when it 

admitted the test results. See, e.g., Matter of K.R., --- N.E.3d ---, 2020 WL 

6065769 (Ind., Oct. 15, 2020) (holding drug test reports sufficiently reliable for 

admission under the business records exception to the hearsay rule). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 6 of 7

2. Sufficiency of Evidence

[8] Norton next alleges the State presented insufficient evidence to support 

revocation of his direct placement in community corrections. The standard by 

which we review revocation of community corrections placements is the same 

as the standard for probation revocations. Bennett v. State, 119 N.E.3d 1057, 

1058 (Ind. 2019). “Probation hearings are civil in nature, and the State must 

prove an alleged probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence.” 

Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1113. We review a trial court’s finding of a violation of 

the conditions of placement for an abuse of discretion. Bennett, 119 N.E.3d at 

1058. When reviewing sufficiency of evidence to support the finding of a 

probation violation, we look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment, 

and we neither reweigh the evidence nor reassess the credibility of the 

witnesses. Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1113.

[9] On February 3, 2020, Norton failed to submit a required sample for drug 

testing, and on January 30, 2020, and February 7, 2020, Norton tested positive 

for methamphetamines and amphetamines. Furthermore, Norton was found 

by Community Corrections staff to be in possession of a controlled substance 

for which he had no prescription when he entered the work release facility on 

March 2, 2020.3

 This evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s 

3 Norton challenges the sufficiency of the probable cause affidavit to demonstrate he violated his placement

because the second page of Exhibit 1 was not signed by a judicial officer indicating probable cause for arrest 

had been found. However, “a probable cause affidavit prepared and signed by an officer under oath bears 

substantial indicia of reliability.” Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1115. The signature of a judicial officer finding 

probable cause was not necessary because the judge in the probation revocation hearing could determine 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-857 | November 13, 2020 Page 7 of 7

revocation of Norton’s direct placement. See, e.g., Votra, 121 N.E.3d at 1116 

(affirming revocation of probation where testimony supported probable cause 

affidavit).

Conclusion

[10] Norton has not demonstrated the trial court abused its discretion in admitting 

the results of Norton’s drug tests, and the State’s evidence was sufficient to 

support the trial court’s revocation of Norton’s direct placement in Community 

Corrections. Accordingly, we affirm.

[11] Affirmed. 

Riley, J., and Altice, J., concur. 

whether the officer’s affidavit demonstrated probable cause. Shidler confirmed the incident happened at the 

work release facility as Norton was being processed back into the facility. This evidence was sufficient to find 

probable cause to believe Norton illegally possessed a controlled substance.