Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 1 of 5

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

Devon M. Sharpe

Jenner & Pattison

Madison, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Marjorie Lawyer-Smith

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Robert Scrogham,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

April 13, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-2692

Appeal from the Jefferson Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Eugene Stewart, 

Senior Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

39C01-1106-FB-510

Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 2 of 5

[1] Robert Scrogham appeals the revocation of his placement in community

corrections. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In December 2011, Scrogham pled guilty to dealing in methamphetamine as a 

class B felony, and in February 2012 the trial court sentenced him to ten years 

and ordered him to serve six years at the Department of Correction (“DOC”) 

and four years in the Jefferson County Community Corrections Program 

subject to the program’s conditions. 

[3] On April 15, 2019, Scrogham’s community corrections case manager filed a 

petition to revoke stating Scrogham was released from the DOC on January 27, 

2016, and alleging he admitted to using Tramadol in July 2018 and 

methamphetamine in December 2018 and failed to (a) report to office 

appointments on seven dates, and (b) call the random drug screen line as 

directed and report for random drug screens on numerous occasions. It also 

alleged that he signed a therapeutic adjustment due to his use of Tramadol, 

pursuant to which he “was to start Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT),” and an 

administrative agreement for failing to attend appointments and admitting to 

methamphetamine use, and that he was not in compliance with those 

agreements. Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 145. On July 15, 2019, the 

court issued an order stating it held a hearing and Scrogham “admitted to

violating the terms of his supervision by failing to report, by failing drug 

screens, and by failing to pay fees.” Id. at 158. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 3 of 5

[4] On August 5, 2019, the court held a hearing at which Scrogham’s community 

corrections case manager testified “we’ve tried to do MRT a couple times,” “I 

tried to do it one-on-one with him just to make it easier for him,” “[t]hat didn’t

work out,” he “didn’t bring his books, stuff like that, so I ended up having to

make him do it in a group.” Transcript Volume II at 5. The case manager also 

testified “[h]e didn’t go to that, and he had tried to MRT in the past as well, as 

well as some other treatment interventions, and since he’s been on with us I 

don’t think any of those have been successful,” “[s]o at this point I feel like 

we’ve kind of exhausted our efforts on what we can do as far as his treatment 

intervention, that type of thing,” and “I just don’t think there’s really any 

options on our program.” Id. 

[5] Scrogham testified he worked for a tree service and his employment was still 

available to him, and he submitted a letter from his employer which stated he 

was a dependable and valuable employee. He indicated he had a substance 

abuse problem and that there were no pending charges against him. He stated 

he was clean when he was released from prison. When asked how he ended up 

backsliding and using again, Scrogham replied: “Man, I get out and meth is 

cheaper and more plentiful now, man. I mean before you had to make it to get 

it. Now it’s everywhere, and that’s the God honest truth.” Id. at 17. He 

indicated he relapsed on methamphetamine. When asked “they tried to get you 

into what’s called the MRT program,” he testified “that’s exactly right,”

“[m]an, but I tell you what, between being strung out and working like –

working all day, man, it was hard making the classes at the time,” and “I didn’t 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 4 of 5

. . . have no vehicle to make it just right on time, and getting a ride was pretty 

substantial at times and – but mostly it was because I was too tired to go to 

them.” Id. He testified that, while incarcerated, he was the victim of a crime 

when four inmates beat him, and that he was a trustee while in the jail and 

cooked, cleaned, washed dishes, and served food. When asked what steps he 

would take to avoid relapsing in the future, he answered “[w]ork harder and eat 

more.” Id. at 20. He also indicated he would obtain substance abuse treatment. 

[6] The court ordered that Scrogham serve the remainder of his sentence in the 

DOC. The order also states: “The Court recommends [Scrogham] be evaluated 

for Recovery While Incarcerated. Upon successful completion of the clinically 

appropriate substance abuse treatment program as determined by the [DOC], 

the Court will consider a modification to this sentence.” Appellant’s Appendix 

Volume II at 163. 

Discussion 

[7] Scrogham asserts he took responsibility for his violations and understands his 

substance abuse must be addressed. He argues he was employed and is able to 

return to work, he illustrated his willingness to be productive by being a trustee 

at the jail, he could receive no benefit by placement in the DOC, the sanction is 

extreme and does not comport with his violations, and home detention or 

electronic monitoring would have sufficed to ensure his continued compliance 

with the community corrections program. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2692 | April 13, 2020 Page 5 of 5

[8] We treat a hearing on a petition to revoke placement in a community

corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke 

probation. Cox v. State, 706 N.E.2d 547, 549 (Ind. 1999), reh’g denied. We 

consider the evidence most favorable to supporting the judgment of the trial 

court without reweighing that evidence or judging the credibility of witnesses.

Id. at 551. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the trial 

court’s conclusion, we will affirm its decision. Id. Placement in community

corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court. Toomey v. State, 887 

N.E.2d 122, 124 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). A defendant’s placement there is a 

matter of grace and a conditional liberty that is a favor, not a right. Id. 

[9] The record reveals that Scrogham was released from the DOC in January 2016,

was clean at the time of his release, and relapsed on methamphetamine. His 

case manager testified he did not complete MRT one-on-one or in a group,

none of the treatment interventions were successful, and he had exhausted his 

options on the program. The trial court’s order placing him at the DOC

recommends that he be evaluated for Recovery While Incarcerated and states 

that, upon successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program, the 

court will consider a sentence modification. Based upon the record, we 

conclude that substantial evidence of probative value supports the trial court’s 

conclusion and affirm the order. 

[10] Affirmed. 

Najam, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.