Najam, J.
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 corrections program.
2. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it revoked his placement in community corrections.
We affirm.
On July 7, 2011, the State charged Hall with burglary, as a Class A felony … 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.
On July 14, 2016, the State charged Hall with attempted robbery, as a Level 3 felony, and battery, as a Class A misdemeanor, … 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 …
On September 19, 2017, Hall pleaded guilty to robbery, as a Level 5 felony, … Thereafter, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s petition to revoke Hall’s placement in community corrections … 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 Hall’s placement in the community corrections program and ordered him to serve the balance of his previously suspended sentence in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.
… Specifically, Hall asserts that the petition was not properly before the trial court because the deputy prosecuting attorney, at the request of the probation officer, had filed the petition when the petition could only be filed by the director of the community corrections program. To support his assertion, Hall relies on Indiana Code Section 35-38-2.6-5 (2018) …
….
But we need not decide whether there might have been any error in the filing of the petition by the prosecuting attorney instead of the director of community corrections because we hold that any potential error was a procedural, not jurisdictional, error and that Hall did not preserve the issue for our review. In reaching this conclusion, we rely on our Supreme Court’s decisions in K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538 (Ind. 2006), and Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. 2006), which we find to be instructive.
….
… The position of the person who filed the petition relates neither to the merits of the controversy or the competence of the court to resolve it. See id. at 932. Further, there is no question that the trial court had jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which the petition belongs. See K.S., 849 N.E.2d at 542. Indeed, “[a]ll circuit courts have . . . original and concurrent jurisdiction in all civil cases and in all criminal cases[.]” I.C. § 33-28-1-2.
… To preserve appellate review of a procedural error, Hall was required to properly object to the error in the trial court, which he did not do. Thus, he has not preserved for our review the merits of his claim on this issue.
….
… As such, we affirm the trial court’s order.
Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Pyle, J., concur.