Kent R. Blair, Sr. v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 373
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kent Blair and his wife, R.B., were co-deeded a Fort Wayne home; after a 2014 domestic-violence incident R.B. obtained an ex parte protective order (no contact, stay-away) and later was awarded the house in a 2015 dissolution decree; Blair received notice of the protective order and (per the State) the decree.
- R.B. moved out for safety but periodically returned to retrieve mail and belongings; she discovered items missing and locks changed on the house.
- On October 31, 2015, R.B. was denied entry; Blair answered the door, told her to leave, and fled when she called police; a week later Blair had again changed locks and padlocked doors, preventing R.B. from entering.
- Police forced entry with R.B.’s permission on November 7, 2015, found Blair inside, and arrested him; Blair told officers the house was his and claimed he lacked the divorce papers.
- The State charged Blair with two counts of invasion of privacy (one merged) and criminal trespass; following a bench trial the court convicted Blair of invasion of privacy (Level 6 felony) and criminal trespass (Class A misdemeanor) and sentenced him to 1.5 years executed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for invasion of privacy | State: Blair knowingly violated the protective order by remaining at and denying R.B. access to her residence after notice | Blair: He believed he owned the house and lacked knowledge of the decree, so he did not knowingly violate the order | Court: Evidence sufficient; trier of fact could reject Blair's credibility and find he knowingly violated the order |
| Sufficiency of evidence for criminal trespass | State: Blair entered/occupied R.B.’s property after being denied entry and had no contractual interest | Blair: He had a good-faith claim of right believing he owned the property | Court: Evidence sufficient; no contractual interest and his claimed belief rejected by factfinder |
| Trial court sentencing discretion | State: sentence supported by aggravators (criminal history, probation status) | Blair: Court abused discretion by relying on an alleged misstatement that Blair perjured himself regarding knowledge of the protective order | Court: No abuse; court clarified misstatement and other aggravators supported the sentence |
| Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B) | State: 1.5 years within statutory range and justified by nature of conduct and Blair's history | Blair: Sentence excessive given offense level and circumstances | Court: Sentence not inappropriate given repeated violation while on probation for prior invasion of privacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review; do not reweigh evidence)
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (substantial evidence standard for affirming convictions)
- Olsen v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (good-faith belief of right negates trespass)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretion)
- Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (App. R. 7(B) review focuses on nature of offense and character of offender)