FOR PUBLICATION

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

DARREN BEDWELL GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

BRIAN REITZ

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

NICHOLAS BREEDLOVE, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1404-CR-240

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT

The Honorable Jose Salinas, Judge 

Cause No. 49G14-1312-FD-80194 

October 31, 2014

OPINION – FOR PUBLICATION

PYLE, Judge
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nicholas Breedlove (“Breedlove”) appeals the trial court’s order revoking his 

placement in community corrections for his theft conviction. On appeal, he argues that 

the trial court violated his due process rights by revoking his community corrections 

placement without first finding that a violation occurred. However, less than a month 

after the trial court revoked his placement, Breedlove was released from prison. Because 

there is no effective relief we can provide, Breedlove’s argument is moot, and we dismiss 

his appeal.

We dismiss.

FACTS

On December 19, 2013, Breedlove was arrested for stealing syringes from 

Eskenazi Hospital in Indianapolis. On the same day, the State charged Breedlove with 

theft, a Class D felony,

1

and possession of paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor.2 On 

February 14, 2014, Breedlove pled guilty to theft and agreed to a 365-day executed 

sentence. In determining his sentence, placement of executed time was left to the court’s 

discretion. However, probation and alternative misdemeanor sentencing were expressly 

excluded from the court’s consideration. That day, the trial court sentenced Breedlove to 

365 days in community corrections work release. However, it stated that it would 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-43-4-2(a). We note that effective July 1, 2014, a new version of this theft statute was 

enacted and that Class D felony theft is now a Class A misdemeanor or a Level 5 or 6 felony, depending 

on the circumstances. Because Breedlove committed his crimes in 2013, we will apply the statute in 

effect at that time.

2

IND. CODE § 35-48-4-8.3(a)(1)(b). 
3

entertain a motion to modify the sentence if the court received certain information about 

his criminal history in Arizona.

Breedlove filed a motion to have his sentence modified to home detention on 

March 3, 2014. However, on March 11, 2014, Marion County Community Corrections 

filed a notice of community corrections violation alleging that Breedlove “refused to 

remain at Duvall Residential Center without harming himself.” (App. 41). The trial 

court conducted several hearings, taking evidence from Breedlove and the State. The 

trial court ultimately found that Breedlove did not violate his community corrections 

placement, but it stated that it was not comfortable placing him back in work release after 

community corrections raised their safety concerns. On April 3, 2014, the trial court 

revoked Breedlove’s community corrections placement and ordered the rest of his 

sentence served at the Department of Correction. Breedlove filed a notice of appeal on 

April 10, 2014. While this appeal was pending, Breedlove was released from the 

Department of Correction on or about May 2, 2014.

DECISION

Breedlove argues that the trial court violated his due process rights by revoking his 

community corrections placement without first finding that a violation occurred. He 

requests that we reverse the trial court’s order placing him in the Department of 

Correction. However, Breedlove completed his sentence and was released from the 

Department of Correction on or about May 2, 2014. Consequently, it appears that 

Breedlove’s appeal is moot. 
4

This court has discussed a similar moot appeal in Bell v. State, 1 N.E.3d 190 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2013). In that case, Bell attended the murder trial of his brother and made 

intimidating statements to witnesses outside of the courtroom. After taking testimony 

from witnesses to Bell’s statements, the trial court ordered him into custody for the 

remainder of the trial. Id. at 191. The trial court appointed a public defender for Bell and 

held a sentencing hearing for the contempt violation. Id. The trial court sentenced him to 

ninety (90) days in the Vanderburgh County Jail with no good time credit. Id. at 192. 

Bell appealed, but he was released from the jail during the pendency of his appeal. Both 

Bell and the State agreed that his appeal was moot, and we dismissed, noting the 

following:

[W]here the principal questions at issue cease to be of real controversy 

between the parties, the errors assigned become moot questions and this 

court will not retain jurisdiction to decide them. Stated differently, when 

we are unable to provide effective relief upon an issue, the issue is deemed 

moot, and we will not reverse the trial court’s determination where 

absolutely no change in the status quo will result.

Id. (quoting Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citations and 

quotations omitted), trans. denied). 

In this case, the Department of Correction released Breedlove less than a month 

after he filed his notice of appeal. As such, we cannot grant the relief he seeks, and his 

appeal is moot. 

However, we note that “although moot cases are usually dismissed, Indiana courts 

have long recognized that a case may be decided on its merits under an exception to the 

general rule when the case involves questions of ‘great public interest.’” In re Lawrance, 
5

579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind. 1991). “Cases in this category typically raise important policy 

concerns and present issues that are likely to recur.” Mosley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 599, 

603 (Ind. 2009). This case does not present an important policy question. Rather, just as 

we found in Bell, Breedlove’s appeal is merely review of alleged error. Bell, 1 N.E.3d at 

193. 

Breedlove’s release from prison less than a month after he filed his appeal 

rendered his argument moot, and we dismiss this case.

Dismissed. 

NAJAM, J., and BAILEY, J., concur.