Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 1 of 6

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

Anthony C. Lawrence

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Jesse R. Drum

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Burnett,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 18, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-130

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Mark Dudley, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C06-1807-F5-1798

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 2 of 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Robert Burnett (Burnett), appeals the trial court’s 

revocation of his home detention and the imposition of his previouslysuspended sentence. 

[2] We affirm. 

ISSUE

[3] Burnett presents this court with one issue on appeal, which we restate as: 

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering Burnett to serve his 

entire previously-suspended sentence after he violated the terms of his home 

detention. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[4] On October 17, 2018, Burnett pleaded guilty to Count I, burglary, a Level 5 

felony, and Count II, theft, a Level 6 felony. The trial court subsequently 

sentenced Burnett to two years in the Department of Correction (DOC) for the 

Level 5 felony and to ten months in the Madison County Detention Center for 

the Level 6 felony. Burnett’s sentences were to run concurrently, and the trial 

court gave Burnett the “privilege of serving” his two-year sentence on home 

detention “subject to the terms and conditions of [] said program.” (Appellant’s 

App. Vol. II, p. 14). 

[5] On October 29, 2018, the Madison County Probation Office (Probation Office) 

filed an amended notice of probation violation, alleging that Burnett had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 3 of 6

“[f]ailed to appear for Home Detention hook-up on October 19, 2018.” 

(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 16). 

[6] Prior to being convicted for the burglary and theft offenses, Burnett lived with 

Tim Roof (Roof). Following Burnett’s conviction, Roof did not let Burnett 

move back in. On November 17, 2018, Roof returned from a hunting trip. At 

around 2:00 a.m., Roof was awakened by a loud banging on his front door. It 

sounded “like somebody was trying to break in” (Transcript p. 10). Roof 

grabbed a gun and walked to the hallway. As his front door opened, Roof

yelled, “stop[,] I got a gun I’ll shoot.” (Tr. p. 11). The door closed, and its 

knob fell to the floor. Burnett then yelled, “Tim, Tim it’s me. I’m cold.” (Tr.

p. 11). Roof “didn’t know what to do” because Burnett was “not in the best of 

shape,” so he allowed Burnett to sleep on his couch. (Tr. pp. 13-14). Roof 

proceeded to gather his other guns that were in the living room and he took 

them to his bedroom because Burnett had “just broke[n]” into his home, and he 

“didn’t know what [Burnett’s] intentions were.” (Tr. p. 11). Roof stayed up all 

night with his rifle. Roof’s brother, whom Roof had sent a text message, called 

the police later that morning. When the police arrived, Roof “was very 

shaken,” “upset,” and “scared,” and there was a rock in the trashcan outside 

with the same debris as the broken door handle. (Tr. pp. 25, 27, 30). On the 

same day, the State filed an Information, charging Burnett with Level 6 felony 

residential entry and Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief. 

[7] On November 21, 2018, the Probation Office filed an amended notice of 

probation violation, alleging that on November 18, 2018, Burnett had 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 4 of 6

accumulated two new offenses—i.e., Level 6 felony residential entry and Class 

B misdemeanor criminal mischief. 

[8] On December 19, 2018, at a hearing on the notice of home detention violation, 

Burnett admitted to at least one of the violations—that he had failed to report to 

the Probation Office for his home detention hook-up appointment. The State 

also presented evidence surrounding Burnett’s residential entry and criminal 

mischief offenses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked 

Burnett’s home detention and ordered Burnett to serve the balance of his 

previously-suspended sentence in the DOC.

[9] Burnett now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

[10] Burnett appeals the trial court’s order revoking his placement on home 

detention and the imposition of the balance of his previously-suspended 

sentence. 

[11] Both probation and community corrections programs serve as alternatives to 

commitment to the DOC and both are made at the sole discretion of the trial 

court. Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 57 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). A defendant is not 

entitled to serve a sentence in either a probation or a community corrections 

program; rather, placement in either is a matter of grace and a conditional 

liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. The standard of review of an appeal from 

the revocation of a community corrections placement mirrors that for 

revocation of probation. Id. That is, a revocation of community corrections 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 5 of 6

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

violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.

[12] At the revocation hearing, Burnett admitted that he had failed to appear for his 

hook-up appointment with the Probation Office. In addition, the State also 

presented evidence that Burnett had committed additional offenses while on 

probation—i.e., residential entry and criminal mischief.

[13] Burnett argues that the facts surrounding the residential entry and criminal 

mischief offenses indicate that he did not commit these new offenses. Burnette

claims that he had previously lived with Roof, and although Roof claimed he 

was scared by his entry, “Roof permitted Burnett to remain in the residence, 

spend the night, sleep on his couch and let him eat his food. Additionally, 

[Roof] did not call the police on him.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8). 

[14] Contrary to his assertions, Roof unequivocally testified that Burnett broke his 

door handle and entered his house without his permission. The State 

corroborated Roof’s testimony with the testimony of the responding officer, 

who saw a rock in the trashcan outside of the door with the same debris as the 

broken door handle. From this evidence, the trial court reasonably concluded 

by a preponderance of the evidence that Burnett committed residential entry 

and criminal mischief. Burnett’s argument is merely a request for this court to 

reweigh the evidence, which it will not do. See Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 

639 (Ind. 2008). Moreover, Burnett’s admission that he failed to appear for the 

hook-up appointment with the Probation Office was sufficient for the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-130 | July 18, 2019 Page 6 of 6

to revoke his home detention. See Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2005) (holding that a “single violation of the conditions of probation is 

sufficient to support the [trial court's] decision to revoke probation.”), trans. 

denied.

[15] Here, the State met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence 

that Burnett had violated the terms of his home detention; therefore, we hold 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Burnett’s home 

detention. 

CONCLUSION

[16] In sum, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking 

Burnett’s placement on home detention. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court 

order that Burnett serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence.

[17] Affirmed.

[18] Bailey, J. and Pyle, J. concur