Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jordan v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

June 13, 2017

Thomas Jordan, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

         Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Christina R. Klineman, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G17-1604-CM-14330

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew D. Anglemeyer Marion County Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

          Najam, Judge.

         Statement of the Case

         [¶1] Thomas Jordan appeals his conviction for invasion of privacy, as a Class A misdemeanor, following a bench trial. Jordan presents two issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶2] Jordan and Myra Price met in 2009, and they had a child together out of wedlock, Z.P. Jordan established his paternity, and, in July 2015, he and Price submitted to the trial court an agreed entry as to parenting time ("parenting time order"). On April 11, 2016, Price petitioned the trial court for an ex parte order for protection ("protective order") against Jordan, and the court granted the order the same day. The protective order "enjoined" Jordan from: "threatening to commit or committing acts of domestic or family violence, [or] stalking or a sex offense against [Price]"; and harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting, or directly or indirectly communicating with Price. State's Ex. 1. The protective order also stated that it was "not intended to interfere with any parenting time/child visitation orders issued by any other court." Id.

         [¶3] On April 12, an officer with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") went to Jordan's house and told him that Price had obtained the protective order against him, that he would "no longer be permitted to contact" Price, and that he would receive the protective order by mail. Tr. Vol. 2 at 33. Nonetheless, on April 13, Jordan called Price's telephone number and left her a voicemail message. In that four-minute-long message, Jordan acknowledged that he had been notified about the protective order; offered Price a "one time only deal" to renegotiate the parenting time agreement to involve third parties in custody exchanges; told her that, "against [his] better judgment, " he would let her choose the third party, but that it could not be a boyfriend; told her to "take some time and be a grownup"; and told her that if she did not agree, it was going to be "one nasty battle" and that the judge was going to "hear everything." State's Ex. 2.

         [¶4] The State charged Jordan with two counts of invasion of privacy, as Class A misdemeanors, for violation of the protective order.[1] Following a bench trial, the trial court found Jordan guilty of one count, but not guilty of the second count. The court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Jordan accordingly. This appeal ensued.

         Discussion and Decision

         [¶5] Jordan contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Our standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction is as follows:

First, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Second, we only consider the evidence supporting the [judgment] and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence. A conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the job of the fact-finder to determine whether the evidence in a particular case ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.