Anthony Scott Bratcher v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 575
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Bratcher pled guilty to Class B felony child molesting following a June 2012 incident involving a five-year-old neighborgirl.
- He was nineteen at sentencing and has extensive juvenile adjudications including a prior Class B felony child molesting adjudication.
- The trial court calculated risk using IRAS (moderate risk) and STATIC 99 (high risk) and imposed a 20-year sentence with 15 years executed and 5 suspended to probation.
- The sentence included general probation conditions plus Addendum special conditions addressing contacts with minors and internet use.
- Special probation conditions challenged include: no contact with anyone under 16 without approval or treatment, prohibition on activities involving minors under 18, broad internet access restrictions, and site-specific internet prohibitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bratcher’s sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B). | Bratcher argues maximum sentence improper as first adult felony and due to guilty plea. | State contends sentence is appropriate given offense and Bratcher’s history, and that STATIC 99 may be considered. | Sentence affirmed; not an inappropriate length under Rule 7(B). |
| Whether probation conditions restricting contact with children and internet use are valid as applied. | Bratcher complains conditions 15/17 are vague/overbroad; 21/23 are unduly intrusive. | State argues conditions are reasonably related to treatment/public safety and up to trial court discretion. | Conditions 15, 17, 21, and 23 upheld as reasonably related and not vague or overbroad. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 911 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (upheld probation condition restricting activities involving minors; clarifies vagueness concerns when paired with stipulations)
- McVey v. State, 863 N.E.2d 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (upheld internet restrictions with caveat on incidental contact; supports targeted internet limits)
- Rexroat v. State, 966 N.E.2d 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (upheld no-contact-with-minors condition; emphasized no incidental-contact prohibition unless stated otherwise)
- Patton v. State, 990 N.E.2d 267 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (internet restrictions on sites frequented by children affirmed for probationers; limits as tailored to offender)
- Doe v. Marion County Prosecutor, 705 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2013) (Doe restricts broad internet bans; held applicability limited; informs but does not control probation contexts in Indiana)