Casie S. Rudisel, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff
Appeal from the Vigo Superior Court. The Honorable Michael R. Rader, Judge. Cause No. 84D05-1102-FD-576.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Special Asst. to the State Public Defender, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Plainfield, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Richard C. Webster, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Brown, Judge. Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
[¶1] Casie S. Rudisel appeals the trial court's order revoking her probation and placement and ordering that she serve the balance of her original sentence. Rudisel raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing her following revocation of her probation. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶2] On February 9, 2012, Rudisel entered into a plea agreement with the State in which she agreed to plead guilty to operating a vehicle while intoxicated as a class D felony. Rudisel agreed to accept the sentencing recommendation of three years in the Department of Correction (" DOC" ) with all of that time suspended except for 180 days served on home detention as a direct commitment. The plea agreement also provided that Rudisel be placed on formal probation for 915 days and that the sentence run consecutive to the sentence in cause number " FB 3678." Appellant's Appendix at 26.
[¶3] That same day, the court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced Rudisel to three years suspended except for 180 days to be served as a direct commitment on home detention under the supervision of the Vigo County Community Corrections Program, with no actual days credit. The court ordered that Rudisel have until May 2, 2012, to be placed on home detention, that she be placed on formal probation for 915 days following release from home detention, that she complete the Vigo County Alcohol and Drug Program as a term of probation, and that the sentence be served consecutive to her sentence in cause number 84D03-0911-FB-3678.
[¶4] On April 30, 2012, and May 21, 2012, the court received letters from Rudisel, and on June 1, 2012, the court held a hearing on her request to modify her sentence. That same day, the court entered an order requiring that Rudisel be placed on work release in lieu of the previously ordered home detention.
[¶5] On June 26, 2012, Rudisel notified the court of her inability to follow through with the modified sentence. That same day, the State filed a petition to revoke placement in the work release program and/or to revoke probation. The State alleged that Rudisel violated her direct placement by failing to enter the Vigo County Work Release Facility and begin her placement in the Work Release Program.
[¶6] On July 12, 2012, the court held a hearing on the State's petition and found that Rudisel violated the terms of her direct placement. The court ordered her to
be evaluated for placement at Freebirds Solution Center " and if found appropriate she is to be placed in that program within two (2) weeks and pay all the program fees." Id. at 38. The court also ordered her to complete her home detention at that program if the arrangements could be made and to comply with the terms of the Vigo County Alcohol and Drug Program.
[¶7] On August 22, 2012, the State filed a petition to revoke direct placement in home detention and/or to revoke probation and alleged that on July 26, 2012, Rudisel was found to be residing at Freebirds serving her home detention as ordered as a direct commitment, but that " [o]n August 20, 2012, the State was informed by Freebirds, [Rudisel] obsconded [sic] during ransom [sic] drug testing and has not returned to date." Id. ...