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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: 

CARA SCHAEFER WIENEKE GREGORY F. ZOELLER 

Special Asst. to the State Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana 

Wieneke Law Office, LLC 

Plainfield, Indiana KARL M. SCHARNBERG 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

ROBERT C.W. GETCHELL, ) 

) 

Appellant-Defendant, ) 

) 

vs. ) No. 42A01-1407-CR-281 

) 

STATE OF INDIANA, ) 

) 

Appellee-Plaintiff. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE KNOX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 1 

The Honorable W. Timothy Crowley, Judge 

Cause No. 42D01-1208-FB-060 

January 12, 2015 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

FRIEDLANDER, Judge 
2

Robert C.W. Getchell appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his placement in 

a community corrections program and the court’s order that he serve the balance of a sixyear sentence previously suspended to community corrections in the Department of 

Correction. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in this regard.

We affirm.

On August 23, 2012, the State charged Getchell with dealing in 

methamphetamine, a class B felony; possession of chemical reagents or precursors with 

intent to manufacture a controlled substance, a class D felony; possession of 

methamphetamine, a class D felony; resisting law enforcement, a class D felony; and 

maintaining a common nuisance, a class D felony. On December 6, 2012, pursuant to a 

plea agreement with the State, Getchell pleaded guilty to class B felony dealing in 

methamphetamine as charged in this cause (FB-60) and to class C felony possession of 

methamphetamine in an unrelated cause (FC-35). The plea agreement provided for 

consecutive sentences with the sentence under FC-35 to be four years with two years to 

be served in the Wabash Valley Regional Community Corrections Work Release 

Program (Work Release Program) and two years suspended to probation followed by ten 

years with six years to be served in the Work Release Program and four years suspended 

to probation under FB-60. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss the 

remaining charges in FB-60 and FC-35 as well as all of the charges in third cause. The 

trial court accepted the plea agreement and Getchell was sentenced in accordance 

therewith on January 4, 2013. 
3

Sometime prior to December 26, 2013, Getchell had been accused of being “out of 

bounds” or not in compliance with the rules of the Work Release Program. Transcript at 

20. A hearing before the Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) had been scheduled to 

determine whether, in fact, Getchell had committed a violation of the rules of the Work 

Release Program and whether any sanction was warranted. On December 26, 2013, a 

correctional officer with the Work Release Program presented Getchell with and asked 

him to sign a CAB packet, which gave him notice of the upcoming hearing before the 

CAB. Getchell became “very angry” and refused to sign the packet. Transcript at 11. 

Getchell then demanded to know the status of his passes, and the correctional officer 

informed him that he would not receive any passes until after his meeting before the 

CAB. Upon learning that he would not be receiving any passes, Getchell became very 

angry and he threatened to burn down the work release coordinator’s house and car. 

When the correctional officer told Getchell that he was going to write him up for making 

those threats, Getchell began calling the officer names. The correctional officer testified 

that Getchell tried to goad him into fighting him. When the correctional officer pointed 

out that this would only lead to new charges against him, Getchell elected to go back to 

the dorm. Back in the dorm, Getchell continued being disruptive and “very disorderly,” 

yelling obscenities and threatening staff. Id. at 15.

On January 8, 2014, the State filed a notice of probation violation in FB-601 based 

on Getchell’s remarks threatening bodily harm to the staff of the Work Release Program

 

1 On August 28, 2013, Getchell completed that portion of his sentence to be served in the Work Release Program 

resulting from his guilty plea in FC-35. The following day Getchell began serving that portion of his sentence to be 

served in the Work Release Program under FB-60. Hence, the notice of probation violation was filed under FB-60.
4

and his threats to burn the house and car of the work release coordinator. The court held 

a hearing on the notice of probation violation on June 4, 2014. During the hearing, 

Getchell denied making any threatening remarks, but he did admit to being disrespectful 

toward a staff member of the Work Release Program in violation of the center’s rules. At 

the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Getchell’s placement in the Work 

Release Program and ordered the remaining portion of his probation placement therein to 

be executed in the Department of Correction. Getchell now appeals.

We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community 

corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation.

Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547 (Ind.

1999). Probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to 

commitment to the Department of Correction, and placements in such programs are made 

at the sole discretion of the trial court. Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479. A defendant is 

not entitled to serve a sentence in either probation or a community corrections program; 

rather placement is a matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right.

Id.

Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of 

a community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of probation. Id. A 

probation hearing is civil in nature, and the State need only prove the alleged violations 

by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. We consider the evidence most favorable to the 

judgment of the trial court and do not reweigh that evidence or judge the credibility of the 

 
5

witnesses. Id. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial 

court’s conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation 

or community corrections, we affirm its decision to revoke. Id.

On appeal, Getchell acknowledges that his behavior was inappropriate and 

violated the rules of the Work Release Program. Getchell argues, however, that the trial 

court’s order that he serve in the Department of Correction the balance of his previously 

suspended sentence that was to be served in community corrections was “unduly harsh.” 

Appellant’s Brief at 4. We disagree.

The evidence presented at the revocation hearing showed that Getchell threatened 

to burn down the house and car of the work release coordinator because he was upset that 

his passes had been revoked. A corrections officer testified that Getchell used 

profanities, called him names, and tried to goad him into fighting. Under these 

circumstances, it seems evident that Getchell cannot be placed back in the Work Release 

Program. Getchell does not suggest what lesser alternatives were available to the court, 

and that is not to say that a lesser alternative to incarceration would be appropriate under 

these circumstances. Having reviewed the record, we cannot say that the trial court 

abused its discretion in revoking Getchell’s placement in the Work Release Program and 

in ordering that the balance of the six years of his sentence therein to be executed in the 

Department of Correction.

Judgment affirmed.

KIRSCH, J., and CRONE, J., concur.