Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 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

Donald E.C. Leicht

Kokomo, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Michael Gene Worden

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Corey M. Gardner-Shepard,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 17, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

34A05-1703-CR-661

Appeal from the Howard Superior 

Court

The Honorable William C. 

Menges, Judge

Trial Court Cause Nos.

34D01-1308-FA-626

34D01-1307-FB-520

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 2017 Page 2 of 6

[1] Corey Gardner-Shepard appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation 

and ordering that he serve his previously-suspended sentence. GardnerShepard argues that the sanction for the violation is too severe and that the trial 

court erroneously calculated the credit time he is owed. Finding no error with 

respect to the sanction and that any other reviewable error was invited, we 

affirm.

Facts

[2] On May 21, 2014, Gardner-Shepard pleaded guilty under two causes that were 

combined into one plea agreement to the following offenses: Class B felony 

unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon; Class D felony 

possession of a narcotic drug; Class A misdemeanor dealing in marijuana; and 

Class B felony dealing in cocaine or a narcotic drug. Appellant’s App. Vol. II 

p. 56. The trial court sentenced Gardner-Shepard to an aggregate term of 5,475 

days, with 4,380 executed and 1,090 suspended to probation; the trial court 

awarded Gardner-Shepard 619 days of credit time.

[3] On July 25, 2016, Gardner-Shepard filed a petition to modify his sentence. The 

trial court granted the petition on September 8, 2016, placing Gardner-Shepard

in the Community Transition Program on home detention, placing GardnerShepard in a re-entry program, and suspending the remainder of GardnerShepard’s sentence to probation. A specific provision of the Community 

Transition Program required Gardner-Shepard to successfully complete the trial 

court’s re-entry program.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 2017 Page 3 of 6

[4] On January 12, 2017, the State filed a petition to revoke Gardner-Shepard’s 

probation because he withdrew from the re-entry program. At a February 2, 

2017, hearing on the petition to revoke, Gardner-Shepard admitted that he had 

withdrawn from the re-entry program. Consequently, the trial court determined 

that Gardner-Shepard had violated the terms of his probation.

[5] On March 7, 2017, the trial court held a hearing regarding the sanctions to be 

imposed for the probation violation. It ordered Gardner-Shepard to serve 1,838 

days of his previously-suspended sentence. In calculating the amount of credit 

time Gardner-Shepard was due for the time he was incarcerated while awaiting 

disposition of the revocation proceedings, the trial court relied on GardnerShepard’s representations and awarded 60 days of credit time. Tr. p. 15-16. 

Gardner-Shepard now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Gardner-Shepard raises two arguments on appeal: (1) the order that he serve 

the balance of his previously-suspended sentence for the probation violation is 

too severe; and (2) the trial court erroneously calculated the amount of credit 

time to which he is entitled for the period of time he was incarcerated during 

the probation revocation proceedings.1

 

1 Gardner-Shepard also seems to argue that the trial court failed to award him credit time for time spent in 

the Department of Correction (DOC) between May 21, 2014, and his sentencing modification on September 

8, 2016. He may also be arguing that he is entitled to even more credit time because of his participation in a 

DOC program. Credit time to which he is owed during incarceration with the DOC, however, is for the 

DOC, rather than the trial court, to calculate and determine. See Ellis v. State, 58 N.E.3d 938, 941 (Ind. Ct. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 2017 Page 4 of 6

[7] With respect to the sanction imposed by the trial court, we note that probation 

is a matter of grace left to the trial court’s discretion rather than a right to which 

a defendant is entitled. E.g., Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). 

The trial court determines the terms and conditions of probation, and the trial 

court may revoke probation if the terms and conditions are violated. E.g., 

Castillo v. State, 67 N.E.3d 661, 663-64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. 

Indeed, a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation for violation of a single 

condition of his probation. E.g., Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2015).

[8] Here, it is undisputed that a condition of Gardner-Shepard’s probation was his 

participation with and successful completion of the trial court’s re-entry 

program. It is also undisputed that Gardner-Shepard withdrew from that 

program before completing it. Gardner-Shepard has a lengthy criminal history 

and has violated probation in the past. Under these circumstances, we find no 

error with respect to the trial court’s decision to revoke probation and order that 

Gardner-Shepard serve the balance of his previously-suspended sentence.

 

App. 2016) (holding that trial court determines the initial amount of credit time at the time of sentencing; 

thereafter, it is for the DOC to determine any modifications to credit time), trans. denied. Furthermore, if 

Gardner-Shepard seeks to raise a judicial claim that DOC has failed to give him all credit time he is owed 

from his prior incarceration, he must demonstrate that he has exhausted all administrative remedies with the 

DOC for that credit time. See id. at 941 (defendant must exhaust all DOC administrative remedies before 

appealing to a court regarding credit time). Gardner-Shepard has made no showing or argument that he has 

done so. As such, we will not address his arguments related to credit time allegedly accumulated during his 

period of incarceration before his probation violation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 2017 Page 5 of 6

[9] With respect to the trial court’s calculation of the credit time Gardner-Shepard 

is owed for the time in which he was incarcerated while awaiting disposition of 

the probation violation proceedings, Gardner-Shepard argues that he was in jail 

awaiting disposition for 69 days, rather than the 60 days found by the trial 

court. The relevant portion of transcript reads as follows:

Court: . . . [Gardner-Shepard is] given credit for 42 

actual days or 84 days day-for-day credit 

served while awaiting disposition in this 

matter. That is starting from the date of 

arrest on Petition to Revoke . . . going from 

January 24th. . . .

Defense Counsel: Your Honor, Mr. Gardner-Shepard thinks 

that he was incarcerated at Howard County 

Jail since the 28th of December.

Court: So he’s thinking he was in longer than [the] 

24[th]. So through January 5th would have 

been his CTP[2] time.

Defense Counsel: Correct, Judge.

Court: So we’d want to start his sentence then on 

January 6th. So . . . he’s given credit for 60 

actual days or 120 days day-for-day credit 

 

2

“CTP” refers to the Community Transition Program, which Gardner-Shepard was serving on home 

detention. Earlier in the hearing, Gardner-Shepard’s attorney informed the court that “Mr. Shepard was on 

Community Corrections CTP until the 5th of January, 2016.” Tr. p. 13.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A05-1703-CR-661 | July 17, 2017 Page 6 of 6

served while awaiting disposition in this 

matter.

***

Defense Counsel: Thank you, Judge.

Tr. p. 15-16. 

[10] It is unclear from this record whether an error was, in fact, made—no exhibits 

related to Gardner-Shepard’s incarceration dates were admitted into evidence at 

the hearing. But even if an error was made, it was invited, as GardnerShepard’s attorney agreed that he had been on home detention through January 

5, 2016, and agreed with the trial court that sixty days of credit time was the 

appropriate amount owed to Gardner-Shepard. See Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 

904, 907 (Ind. 2005) (holding that a party may not take advantage of an error 

that he commits or invites); Hill v. State, 51 N.E.3d 446, 451 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2016) (noting that invited error is not fundamental error). Therefore, we 

decline to reverse on this basis.

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

Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.