Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

James B. Martin

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Deborah June Harris,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

March 7, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

32A01-1609-CR-2112

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court

The Honorable Rhett M. Stuard, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

32D02-1503-F6-235

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 2017 Page 2 of 6

Case Summary and Issue

[1] The trial court revoked Deborah Harris’s placement in home detention and 

ordered her to serve the entirety of her two previously suspended sentences in 

the Indiana Department of Correction. Harris appeals, raising one issue for our 

review: whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Harris’s 

probation. Concluding the trial court abused its discretion, we reverse its order 

requiring Harris to serve the entirety of her two previously suspended sentences 

in the Department of Correction and remand with instructions to continue 

Harris in home detention.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In July of 2015, Harris pleaded guilty to theft as a Level 6 felony and the trial 

court sentenced her to 545 days in the Department of Correction with 535 days 

suspended to probation.

[3] In February of 2016, the State charged Harris with theft as a Level 6 felony and 

subsequently filed a petition seeking to revoke Harris’s probation in her 2015 

case, alleging Harris violated her probation by committing a new theft. After 

finding Harris violated a condition of her probation, the trial court ordered her 

to serve her previously suspended sentence in home detention. In July of 2016, 

Harris pleaded guilty to theft as a Level 6 felony in the 2016 case and the trial 

court sentenced her to 365 days in home detention to be served consecutively to 

her prior sentence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 2017 Page 3 of 6

[4] On August 2, 2016, the State filed another petition to revoke, alleging Harris 

violated the conditions of her home detention by failing to provide her 

probation officer with documentation verifying her whereabouts while

permitted to be outside the home.

[5] The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Harris’s home detention violation 

on August 15, 2016. At the hearing, Gwyn Green, Harris’s probation officer,

testified about three separate instances in which Harris failed to verify her 

whereabouts outside of the home. On July 16, 2016, Harris was granted 

permission to go shopping for groceries, but failed to provide Green with a 

receipt. The next day, Harris was granted permission to attend church, but 

again failed to provide Green any documentation. Green testified, “All we ask 

is just for a bulletin that, you know, show kind of proof that they were [there] 

and she didn’t have any documentation of that as well.” Transcript at 6. 

Finally, Harris failed to have a nurse sign and verify her whereabouts while she 

visited her terminally ill husband at the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana. 

Harris gave Green a signed timesheet verifying when she visited her husband, 

but when Green called the hospital, Green found the names on the timesheet 

were not employees of the hospital. Green also testified she was aware Harris 

suffers from dementia and congestive heart failure.

[6] Harris also testified at the hearing and admitted she violated the rules of home 

detention. To clarify her violations, Harris stated she went shopping at Dollar 

General near her home on July 16, but misplaced the receipt. On July 17, 

because Green would not allow her to attend her normal church as it is too far 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 2017 Page 4 of 6

from her home, Harris attended a different church near her home but also 

misplaced the church bulletin she picked up. In regard to her failure to have a 

nurse from the Rehabilitation Hospital of Indiana verify she visited her 

husband, Harris testified she simply had the wrong people sign her paperwork. 

She stated she is permitted to visit her husband most days from 3:00 p.m. until 

6:00 p.m., which is the time during which her husband undergoes dialysis 

treatment. As Harris later discovered, the medical personnel administering her 

husband’s dialysis were not employees of the Rehabilitation Hospital of 

Indiana, and for whatever reason, their signatures were not acceptable to 

Green.

[7] At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Harris’s placement in 

home detention and remanded her to the Department of Correction to serve the 

remaining 774 days of her previously suspended sentences. Harris now 

appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Initially, we note the standard of review on appeal from the revocation of direct 

placement in home detention mirrors that for revocation of probation. Cox v. 

State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999). “Probation is a matter of grace left to 

trial court discretion, not a right to which a criminal defendant is entitled.” 

Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind. 2007). To revoke a defendant’s 

probation, the trial court must engage in a two-step process. Woods v. State, 892 

N.E.2d 637, 640 (Ind. 2008). First, the trial court must make a factual 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 2017 Page 5 of 6

determination that a violation of a condition of probation actually occurred. Id. 

If a violation is proven, then the trial court must determine if the violation 

warrants revocation of the probation. Id. A trial court’s sentencing decision for 

probation violations is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Prewitt, 878 N.E.2d 

at 188. An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court. Id.

[9] Harris argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her placement in 

home detention and ordering her to serve the remaining balance of her 

sentences in the Department of Correction. We agree.

[10] We acknowledge Harris admitted her violations1 and that a “single violation of 

the conditions of probation is sufficient to support the [trial court’s] decision to 

revoke probation.” Bussberg v. State, 827 N.E.2d 37, 44 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), 

trans. denied. However, under the facts and circumstances reflected in the 

record, including Harris’s dementia and congestive heart failure, her desire to 

visit her terminally ill husband in the hospital, the minor violations committed, 

and the severity of the trial court’s sentence, we conclude the trial court abused 

its discretion in finding her violations warranted serving 774 days in the 

 

1 We note the harmless nature of Harris’s violations. Green did not testify that Harris left home detention 

without permission for long periods of time or that she doubted Harris actually visited the hospital, church, 

or the store, only that Harris was occasionally late returning home and failed to produce documentation 

verifying her whereabouts. For someone suffering from dementia, her struggles with keeping schedules and 

remembering probation rules should hardly come as a surprise. We do not wish to excuse her actions as she 

is on home detention for committing theft and must abide by the rules; however, we do not consider it an 

efficient use of the resources of the State of Indiana to remand an elderly woman suffering from dementia to 

the Department of Correction for such minor violations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A01-1609-CR-2112 | March 7, 2017 Page 6 of 6

Department of Correction. See Ripps v. State, 968 N.E.2d 323, 325-26 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012) (concluding that in light of defendant’s medical condition, the 

technical nature of the probation violation, and the fact defendant admitted to 

violating the terms of his probation, the trial court abused its discretion in 

ordering defendant to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence in the 

Department of Correction).

Conclusion

[11] We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Harris’s placement 

in home detention. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order that Harris 

serve the remaining 774 days of her previously suspended sentences in the 

Department of Correction and remand with instructions for the trial court to 

continue Harris in home detention. 

[12] Reversed and remanded.

Barnes, J., concurs.

Kirsch, J., dissents.