Latoy Kisha Jordan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
48A04-1702-CR-407
| Ind. Ct. App. | Sep 11, 2017Background
- Jordan pleaded guilty to level 6 criminal recklessness and level 5 carrying a handgun without a license under a plea agreement that included a no-contact provision with victim Amanda Folden and a two-year sentencing cap.
- The trial court sentenced Jordan to concurrent executed terms (two years for level 6; two years executed plus three years suspended for level 5) and imposed probation conditions including compliance with the no-contact order and no new crimes.
- The State alleged Jordan violated probation by committing invasion of privacy (a class A misdemeanor) through repeated contacts with Folden beginning while Jordan was incarcerated.
- Evidence at the revocation hearing: Folden testified Jordan contacted her at least six times and made threats; an investigator confirmed a no-contact order existed under the cause number; a caseworker warned Jordan to stop, but contacts continued.
- The trial court found Jordan violated probation, revoked one year of probation, and ordered that year to be served on in-home detention.
- Jordan appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support revocation because the State did not introduce the specific no-contact order into evidence and because Folden allegedly initiated contact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke probation for invasion of privacy (violating a no-contact order) | State: Jordan knowingly contacted Folden in violation of the plea/no-contact order and thus committed invasion of privacy; proved by testimony and investigator confirmation | Jordan: Insufficient proof the no-contact order existed (not introduced into evidence); Folden initiated contact | Court affirmed: evidence by a preponderance showed violation; conviction not required for revocation; one violation sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007) (probation is discretionary, not a right)
- Heaton v. State, 984 N.E.2d 614 (Ind. 2013) (trial court sets probation conditions and may revoke for violations)
- Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard of review and proof—preponderance—applies to probation revocation; one violation suffices)