Bonita M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Citation: Not availableDocket: 20A05-1708-CR-1887

Court: Indiana Court of Appeals; January 23, 2018; Indiana; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

A Memorandum Decision issued by the Indiana Court of Appeals on January 24, 2018, addresses the appeal of Bonita M. Richardson, who contested the trial court's order revoking her placement with Elkhart County Community Corrections (ECCC) and executing the remainder of her sentence with the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC). Richardson had been sentenced to 910 days for Level 6 felony fraud after using another person's HSA card, with a portion of the sentence executed at ECCC and the rest suspended to probation.

After failing to return to ECCC following a work pass on January 19, 2017, a violation notice was filed, leading to a new charge of Level 6 felony failure to return to lawful detention. Richardson admitted to the violation and pled guilty to the new charge during a combined hearing on June 28, 2017. At her sentencing on August 2, 2017, she cited mental health issues as reasons for her actions but acknowledged she did not communicate these problems to the work release staff.

The trial court revoked her ECCC placement and sentenced her to serve the balance of her initial sentence with the DOC. For the failure to return conviction, the court considered both aggravating and mitigating factors, ultimately imposing a one-year advisory sentence to be served consecutively. The court also ordered a mental health assessment while Richardson is in custody. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, finding no error and that the sentence was appropriate.

Richardson challenges the trial court's decision to revoke her placement with the East Central Community Corrections (ECCC) and to execute the remainder of her sentence at the Department of Corrections (DOC). Under Indiana law, the community corrections director can request revocation if a defendant violates placement terms, and the trial court has broad discretion in such matters. In this case, Richardson admitted to violating the terms of her work release and went missing for two months, leading ECCC to file a notice of violation. Despite her arguments regarding her mental health and prior admissions of violation, the court found no error in revocation; her history of rule violations during a previous placement supported this decision.

Richardson further contends that the trial court erred by not considering her mental health history as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The trial court has discretion in sentencing, and an appellate court will only reverse if the decision contradicts the facts. While Richardson raised her mental health issues at the hearing, the court did not explicitly address them in its order. Although she claims the court should have considered this factor, it's established that mental illness need not always be given mitigating weight. Factors influencing this consideration include the defendant's ability to control behavior, overall functioning limitations, duration of the mental illness, and its connection to the crime.

A defendant is entitled to mitigating weight for mental illness only in specific circumstances, as illustrated by past Supreme Court rulings where such evidence was significant. In Richardson's case, her claims of longstanding mental health issues were primarily supported by her testimony and a presentence investigation report, which noted her bipolar disorder and depression diagnoses, along with previous suicide attempts. However, the evidence lacked detail on her ability to control her behavior or the relevance of her mental illness to the offense. Consequently, the trial court did not err in not assigning mitigating weight to her mental history.

Regarding the appropriateness of Richardson's sentence, she argued that the one-year term was inappropriate given the nature of her offense and her character. The Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) allows for sentence revision if deemed inappropriate, but emphasizes deference to the trial court's judgment. Richardson was convicted of a Level 6 felony for failure to return to lawful detention, facing a possible sentence of six months to two and a half years. She absconded from a work release program for over two months without violence or weapons, but the statute already considered such factors. While Richardson's guilty plea and honesty were positive aspects of her character, her extensive criminal history, including numerous convictions and rule violations during work release, were significant negatives. 

Richardson suggested that home detention or continued work release would be more suitable, citing the need for better mental health support and family considerations. However, the trial court noted the ineffectiveness of alternative sentences in reforming her behavior and mandated a mental health assessment during her incarceration. Ultimately, the court found the one-year advisory sentence appropriate given her criminal background and failed compliance with past release conditions, affirming the trial court's judgment.