Brown, J.
Brad L. Sullivan appeals the revocation of his community corrections placement. Sullivan raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his placement in community corrections. We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
On September 14, 2015, Sullivan and the State executed a plea agreement which provided that Sullivan would plead guilty to intimidation as a level 6 felony, criminal trespass as a class A misdemeanor, and battery as a class A misdemeanor in this cause, and battery as a class A misdemeanor in another cause. …
….
At a guilty plea hearing on September 14, 2015, Sullivan pled guilty pursuant to the plea agreement, and the court imposed an aggregate sentence of two years with eighteen months to be served on home detention and the balance to be served on supervised probation. In its judgment of conviction, the court stated: “If the defendant has not been approved for home detention by October 20, 2015, then the defendant shall report to the Decatur County Jail on that date to serve the sentence as an executed sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.” Id. at 43.
On October 23, 2015, Decatur County Community Corrections filed a petition to revoke community corrections placement alleging Sullivan violated the conditions of his placement by not reporting to start home detention as described in an attached affidavit and incident report.
On October 29, 2015, the court held an initial hearing on the petition at which Sullivan stated that he had paperwork that proves he was in the Columbus Regional Mental Health Unit and from there went to St. Vincent’s Stress Center and that he was institutionalized and could not report. … The court informed Sullivan that, if he was found to be in violation, the court could continue his placement or could order all or a part of his previously suspended sentence to be served in the Indiana Department of Correction (the “DOC”). The court entered a denial of the allegations on behalf of Sullivan and scheduled a revocation hearing.
On November 12, 2015, the court held the revocation hearing, at which the State presented the testimony of the Director for Decatur County Community Corrections who stated that, “after Court, [Sullivan] did come in, and we gave him a Court date of October twentieth (20th) to start his[] home detention,” that there was no additional contact with Sullivan prior to October 20th, and that Sullivan did not begin home detention on or before October 20th. Id. at 30.
….
Sullivan testified and acknowledged his report date of October 20th and stated that he was in a mental health facility at the time for “post traumatic distress disorder and major depressive disorder.” Id. at 33. … He testified he was released from St. Vincent’s on October 21st and that he was under the impression that his counsel “had taken care of everything, then by the time I was able to contact him again, he had moved to South Carolina, I believe it was.” Id. at 35. …
… The court found Sullivan in violation of the conditions of his community corrections placement on home detention by not beginning his placement as ordered, revoked his placement, and ordered that he serve his time at the Indiana Department of Correction. …
Discussion
The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Sullivan’s placement in community corrections. Placement in community corrections is at the sole discretion of the trial court. Treece v. State, 10 N.E.3d 52, 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citation omitted), trans. denied. For purposes of appellate review, we treat a hearing on a petition to revoke a placement in a community corrections program the same as we do a hearing on a petition to revoke probation. Holmes v. State, 923 N.E.2d 479, 482 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citation omitted). …
….
We note that Sullivan does not dispute that he did not report as required on October 20, 2015. Rather, he maintains the court abused its discretion in imposing such a harsh sentence under the circumstances including among other factors that he was in a mental health hospital on the day he was to report. …
In any event the very notion that violation of a probationary term will result in revocation no matter the reason is constitutionally suspect. …
We acknowledge that telling a defendant that he is on “strict compliance” is a dramatic way of putting him on notice that he is on a short leash and has been given one final chance to “get his act together.” Nonetheless due process requires that a defendant be given the opportunity to explain why even this final chance is deserving of further consideration. Id. at 641 (citations omitted).
….
Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the violation and sanction, we conclude the trial court abused its discretion in finding that Sullivan’s violation warranted revoking his community corrections placement and in ordering him to serve eighteen months in the DOC. See Ripps, 968 N.E.2d at 325-326…
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order of the trial court revoking Sullivan’s placement in community corrections and remand for placement in community corrections.
Reversed and remanded.
Baker, J., and May, J., concur.