Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 1 of 5

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

Richard Walker

Anderson, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. MacKenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Breon M. Davenport,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 28, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A02-1604-CR-954

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mark K. Dudley, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C06-1505-F2-791

Mathias, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 2 of 5

[1] Breon M. Davenport (“Davenport”) appeals the Madison Circuit Court’s order 

revoking his probation and ordering him to serve his two-year placement in inhome detention executed in the Department of Correction.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On May 27, 2015, seventeen-year-old Davenport and his accomplices stole 

marijuana from the victim, and during the robbery, Davenport’s accomplice 

shot the victim in the hand and thigh. The next day, Davenport was charged as 

an adult with Level 2 felony aiding, inducing, or causing robbery resulting in 

serious bodily injury, Level 3 felony aiding, inducing, or causing armed 

robbery, and Level 3 felony aggravated battery. 

[4] On October 20, 2015, Davenport pleaded guilty to Level 5 felony aiding, 

inducing, or causing robbery, a lesser included offense of the Level 2 felony 

robbery charge, in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charges. On 

November 17, 2015, Davenport was ordered to serve a five-year sentence with

three years suspended to probation. The remaining two years were ordered 

executed in in-home detention.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 3 of 5

[5] After serving approximately thirty days in in-home detention, Davenport 

removed his ankle bracelet1, and his whereabouts became unknown. Therefore, 

on January 6, 2016, a warrant was issued for his arrest. Davenport was arrested 

on February 9, 2016.

[6] Davenport was taken to the Madison County Youth Center. While the center 

was processing Davenport’s arrest, Davenport jumped over a counter, grabbed 

a fire extinguisher, and ran into the security booth. The door automatically 

locked behind Davenport. A Youth Center employee was trapped inside the 

booth with Davenport, and he warned her not to open the door. Using the fire 

extinguisher, Davenport smashed the security automated systems electronic 

control panel, which controlled the locks for the facility, and damaged two

window panes. The incident continued for approximately ten minutes until law 

enforcement personnel were able to calm Davenport and remove him from the 

security booth.

[7] At the probation revocation hearing, Davenport admitted that he took 

substantial steps toward commission of a new criminal offense, i.e. Level 6 

felony escape. The trial court also found that he “took substantial steps in the 

commission of the new criminal offense of Criminal Mischief, Class A 

 

1 The State also alleged that Davenport committed theft of the ankle bracelet. However, at the revocation 

hearing, Davenport stated that he returned the device to the appropriate authority. The trial court found that 

the State failed to prove that Davenport committed theft.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 4 of 5

misdemeanor” for the acts Davenport committed on February 9, 2016 during 

intake at the Youth Center. 

[8] After concluding that Davenport violated terms of his probation, the court 

observed that he “received a break when [he] got sentenced to In-Home as 

opposed to the DOC for a Level 5 felony. That was a heck of a break. And by 

your actions you’ve lost that break . . . .” Tr. p. 59. Therefore, the trial court

revoked Davenport’s placement in in-home detention and ordered him to serve 

his two-year in-home detention executed in the Department of Correction. 

Davenport was given credit for time served. He now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Trial courts have the authority to place convicted persons in home detention 

rather than in the Department of Correction. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 

776-77 (Ind. 2015). “Home detention may be imposed as either a condition of 

probation or as an alternative placement that is part of an offender'’ community 

corrections program.” Id. at 777. Either way, the placement is a conditional 

liberty given at the discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s 

revocation thereof under the same standard. Id.

[10] Our standard for reviewing a probation revocation is well settled.

Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a 

right to which a criminal defendant is entitled. The trial court 

determines the conditions of probation and may revoke 

probation if the conditions are violated. Once a trial court has 

exercised its grace by ordering probation rather than 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A02-1604-CR-954 | February 28, 2017 Page 5 of 5

incarceration, the judge should have considerable leeway in 

deciding how to proceed. If this discretion were not afforded to 

trial courts and sentences were scrutinized too severely on 

appeal, trial judges might be less inclined to order probation to 

future defendants. Accordingly, a trial court’s sentencing 

decisions for probation violations are reviewable using the abuse 

of discretion standard. An abuse of discretion occurs where the 

decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 

circumstances.

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). 

[11] Davenport received a substantial benefit from his plea agreement and a lenient 

sentence for the Level 5 felony robbery conviction. He was given the opportunity 

to spend two years in in-home detention instead of the Department of 

Correction. However, he failed to take advantage of the leniency afforded him.

[12] After serving approximately thirty days of In-Home Detention, Davenport cut 

off his ankle monitor and escaped. When he was arrested over a month later, 

he locked himself and a Youth Center employee in a security booth, and caused 

over $3,000 worth of damage to the Youth Center. 

[13] For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion 

when it revoked Davenport’s probation and ordered him to serve his two-year 

placement in in-home detention executed in the Department of Correction.

[14] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Pyle, J., concur.