Scott A. Hall, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Clark Circuit Court The Honorable Vicki L.
Carmichael, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 10C04-1107-FA-43
Attorney for Appellant R. Thomas Lowe Vissing Law LLC
Attorneys for Appellee Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General
McLean Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis,
of the Case
Scott A. Hall appeals the trial court's revocation of his
placement in community corrections. He raises two issues for
our review, which we revise and restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a
hearing on the petition to revoke his placement in community
corrections because the petition had been filed by a deputy
prosecutor instead of the director of the community
2. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error when
it revoked his placement in community corrections.
and Procedural History
On July 7, 2011, the State charged Hall with burglary, as a
Class A felony, in Cause Number 10D01-1107-FA-43
("FA-43"). Following a trial, a jury found him
guilty as charged, and the trial court entered its judgment
of conviction. Thereafter, "pursuant to an agreement
reached by the parties," the trial court sentenced Hall
to twenty years, all to be served in a home incarceration
program through community corrections. Appellant's App.
Vol. III at 59.
On July 14, 2016, the State charged Hall with attempted
robbery, as a Level 3 felony, and battery, as a Class A
misdemeanor, in Cause Number 72C01-1607-F3-11
("F3-11") for crimes that Hall had committed on
July 8. Accordingly, on October 24, the State, by the deputy
prosecuting attorney and at the request of Hall's
probation officer, filed a petition to revoke Hall's
placement in the home detention program in FA-43.
Specifically, the State alleged that Hall had violated the
terms of his placement when he had committed the crimes of
robbery and battery on July 8.
On September 19, 2017, Hall pleaded guilty to robbery, as a
Level 5 felony, in F3-11. Thereafter, the trial court held a
hearing on the State's petition to revoke Hall's
placement in community corrections in FA-43. During that
hearing, Hall admitted to the alleged violation. The trial
court accepted Hall's admission and found that he had
violated the terms of his home incarceration program. The
court then heard evidence concerning Hall's sentence.
Hall offered, and the trial court admitted, a letter from the
community corrections program in which it recommended that
Hall remain in community corrections. At the conclusion of
the hearing, the trial court revoked ...