BAILEY, Judge.
Darren Rayford was convicted of Escape
We affirm.
Rayford presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to correct error, which challenged the trial court's order revoking his work release placement on the basis of purported newly discovered evidence.
On May 24, 2011, Rayford pled guilty to Escape, as a Class B felony, and two counts of Battery, as Class D felonies. The trial court sentenced Rayford to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 ½ years, with five years of the sentence suspended to probation.
On January 31, 2013, Rayford was placed on probation. On August 13, 2013, the State alleged that Rayford had violated the terms of his probation.
On October 14, 2013, upon Rayford's admission, the trial court ordered Rayford's probation revoked. Rayford was ordered to serve the remainder of his suspended sentence under the supervision of Bartholomew County Community Corrections, with at least 150 days of this time to be served as work release.
On December 1, 2013, after having gone to work at his place of employment, Rayford returned to the work release facility and was subjected to an oral swab test for drugs. Rayford tested positive for the use of Suboxone, a Schedule III narcotic drug.
On December 12, 2013, the State filed a second petition to revoke Rayford's probation. In its second petition, the State alleged that on December 1, 2013, Rayford violated the terms of his work release by using Suboxone.
On February 19, 2014, after a contested hearing, the court revoked Rayford's work release and placement in community corrections, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence as executed time in the Department of Correction.
On March 5, 2014, Rayford filed a motion to correct error which challenged the order revoking his work release and community corrections placements. Rayford's motion alleged that on December 1, 2013, his supervisor at his place of employment had transported him back to the work release facility and that the two kissed in his supervisor's vehicle. Rayford alleged in his motion, and averred in a supporting affidavit, that his supervisor had used a sublingual film containing Suboxone prior to kissing Rayford, that during the kiss the two had transferred saliva, and that he tested positive for Suboxone use as a result of the transfer of his supervisor's saliva to his mouth. Rayford further averred that he did not know and had no reason to know of his supervisor's use of Suboxone until after the February 19, 2014 hearing that resulted in the revocation of his placement in community corrections.
Rayford's motion to correct error was not ruled upon, and was thus deemed denied. This appeal ensued.
Rayford appeals the denial of his motion to correct error, which challenged the trial court's order revoking his community corrections placement and requiring that he serve the remainder of his sentence as executed time.
We review for abuse of discretion a trial court's order denying a motion to correct error on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
When a party moves for a new trial based upon claimed newly discovered evidence, the following legal standard applies:
Among the nine factors above is the requirement that "due diligence was used to discover ... in time for trial" the proffered newly discovered evidence.
Rayford's motion to correct error and accompanying affidavit failed to meet this standard. While the documents indicate that Rayford did not know of his supervisor's Suboxone use, they do not aver to any efforts to obtain any evidence before the work release revocation hearing on February 19, 2014—let alone efforts to obtain such information directly from the supervisor. Nor, we note, did any evidence presented in the affidavits tend to establish that the oral exchange of saliva discussed in Rayford's motion and affidavit could result in positive oral swab tests for Suboxone.
We accordingly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Rayford's motion to correct error on the basis of newly discovered evidence.
Affirmed.
ROBB, J., and BROWN, J., concur.