Alford v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 164
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Alford was charged with child molesting and criminal confinement; a no-contact order prohibited contact with the victim, the victim's mother and Jim, extended to Alford's father due to a custody dispute.
- In January 2011, Alford pled guilty to criminal confinement and domestic battery under another case, receiving concurrent suspended sentences with probation and the same no-contact order.
- On July 28, 2011, the State alleged that Alford violated the no-contact order by submitting a false Angie's List review about his father's cleaning business.
- Alford admitted sending the false report but argued it did not amount to contact since there was no direct contact with his father.
- The trial court found contact existed via an intermediary (Angie's List) intended to distress a protected person and revoked probation, imposing 309 remaining days of suspended sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Angie's List report constitute contact under the no-contact order? | Alford claims no direct contact occurred. | State contends contact was established through an intermediary to harass Jim. | Yes; it constitutes contact and supports probation revocation. |
| Was the no-contact order sufficiently clear about third-party contact? | Alford argues the order did not warn that third-party contact violated the order. | State asserts the order prohibited direct, indirect, and intermediary contact with specified individuals. | The order was sufficiently clear; Alford was on notice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. State, 688 N.E.2d 224 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (defines contact as establishment of communication, direct or indirect)
- Ajabu v. State, 677 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (communication may be direct or indirect)
- Hunter v. State, 883 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind.2008) (probation conditions must describe misconduct with clarity)
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind.2007) (abuse of discretion standard for probation violations)
- Cox v. State, 850 N.E.2d 485 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (probation revocation requires two-step process)