Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 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

John T. Wilson 

Anderson, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 

Attorney General of Indiana 

Laura R. Anderson

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joseph A. Brock,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

September 14, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

33A01-1705-CR-1198

Appeal from the Henry Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Edward 

Dunsmore, Judge Pro Tempore

Trial Court Cause Nos.

33C03-1610-F6-360

33C03-1701-CM-71

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary 

[1] On October 14, 2015, under cause number 33C03-1610-F6-360 (“F6-360”), the 

State charged Appellant-Defendant Joseph A. Brock with Level 6 felony theft. 

On November 7, 2016, Brock entered into a plea agreement where he pled 

guilty as charged with an agreed upon sentence of two years to be served as a 

direct commitment to community corrections on in-home detention. On 

November 14, 2016, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. 

[2] On January 13, 2017, Brock was charged under cause number 33C03-1701-

CM-71 (“CM-71”) with Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. On 

January 26, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke in F6-360 alleging that 

Brock violated the terms of his community corrections commitment by 

committing the new offense in CM-71. On March 6, 2017, Brock pled guilty as 

charged in CM-71, and admitted to the community corrections violation in F6-

360. 

[3] On May 1, 2017, the court revoked Brock’s community corrections placement 

and ordered him to serve the balance of his sentence in county jail. The court 

also imposed a 198-day sentence in CM-71 with credit for 198 days. Brock 

appeals, contending that the trial court abused its discretion revoking his 

community corrections placement. Concluding that the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion, we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 Page 3 of 6

[4] On October 13, 2016, Brock took two bags of groceries and credit cards from 

his ex-wife Sherry Brock (“Sherry”) without her permission. Sherry called the 

police. By the time the police arrived at Brock’s residence, Brock was taking 

the food out of his residence and placing it on the front porch stating, “Here is 

your food back Sherry.” App. Vol. II p. 18. Brock had already given the two 

credit cards back to Sherry before the police officers arrived. Brock admitted to 

the police during an interview that he took the food without permission. 

[5] On October 14, 2016, the State charged Brock with Level 6 felony theft in cause 

number F6-360. On November 7, 2016, Brock entered into a plea agreement 

where he pled guilty as charged in exchange for a sentence of two years to be 

served as a direct commitment to community corrections on in-home detention. 

On November 14, 2016, the trial court imposed a sentence in accordance with 

the plea agreement. 

[6] On January 3, 2017, the Henry County Community Corrections administered a 

RAPID urine screen test on Brock. Brock tested positive for 

methamphetamines, buprenorphine, marijuana, and cocaine. test results were 

later confirmed by Redwood Toxicology Laboratories. 

[7] A known employee from Henry County Community Corrections provided a tip 

to police based on the results of Brock’s urine test. This tip resulted in the 

police executing a search warrant at Brock’s residence on January 11, 2017. 

During the course of the search, officers discovered a Marlboro cigarette box in 

the living room that contained a plastic bag of marijuana. Brock subsequently 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 Page 4 of 6

admitted that the marijuana was his. On January 13, 2017, Brock was charged 

under cause CM-71 with Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana. 

[8] On January 26, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke in cause F6-360 

alleging Brock violated the terms of his community corrections commitment by 

committing the new offense charged in cause CM-71. On March 6, 2017, 

Brock pled guilty to possession of marijuana as a Class A misdemeanor in cause 

CM-71, and he admitted to the community corrections violation in cause F6-

360. App. Vol. II pp. 6, 11-12, 46. The trial court took the plea under 

advisement and Brock was referred to the House of Hope to address substance 

abuse issues pending sentencing. App. Vol. II pp. 47, 49. On March 8, 2017, 

Brock was transported to the House of Hope, and was unsuccessfully 

discharged less than two weeks later on March 19, 2017. 

[9] On May 1, 2017, a sentencing hearing was held. During the hearing, Brock 

testified that his plan once released from custody was to go back to work at 

Grede Foundry. Brock, however, admitted that he had not talked with a 

company representative for several months and he had no authoritative letter 

stating that he would be rehired upon his release. Bock also testified that prior 

to his violation he helped take care of his nine-year old child. Further, Brock

testified that he owed $1900 in restitution that he had just started to pay. The 

trial court revoked Brock’s community corrections placement and ordered 

Brock to serve the balance of his sentence—548 days—in the county jail. The 

court also imposed a 198-day sentence in cause CM-71 with credit for 198 days. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Discussion and Decision 

[10] Brock contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his 

community corrections placement because his evidence of an alternative to 

incarceration should have been considered. 

For purposes of appellate review, 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. The 

similarities between the two dictate this approach. Both 

probation and community corrections programs serve as 

alternatives to commitment to the Department of Correction and 

both are made at the sole discretion of the trial court. A 

defendant is not entitled to serve a sentence in either 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.”

Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999) (internal citations and footnotes 

omitted). 

Our standard of review of an appeal from the revocation of a 

community corrections placement mirrors that for revocation of 

probation. A probation hearing is civil in nature and the State 

need only prove the alleged violations by a preponderance of the 

evidence. We will consider all the evidence most favorable to 

supporting the judgment of the trial court without reweighing 

that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses. If there is 

substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial court’s 

conclusion that a defendant has violated any terms of probation, 

we will affirm its decision to revoke probation.

Id. at 551. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1705-CR-1198 | September 14, 2017 Page 6 of 6

[11] It is undisputed that Brock violated his in-home detention placement by testing 

positive for methamphetamine, buprenorphine, marijuana, and cocaine, and by 

being in possession of marijuana. Moreover, after Brock admitted to the 

violations and pled guilty to possession of marijuana, he was given the 

opportunity to attend the House of Hope program prior to sentencing. Brock, 

however, left the program and was unsuccessfully discharged from House of 

Hope in less than two weeks. Brock points to his past employment and child as 

evidence that he should be released to Community Corrections to no avail. The 

trial court was free to disregard Brock’s arguments for release, and apparently 

did. Given his possession of marijuana, his positive urine screen for numerous 

controlled substances, and his inability to complete the House of Hope 

program, Brock has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its 

discretion in imposing a jail sentence.

[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

May, J., and Barnes, J., concur.