Steven M. Sandleben v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 157
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Sandleben was convicted by a jury in Vanderburgh County of stalking, a Class D felony, based on two incidents in Target (Aug 2012) and Michaels (May 2013) where he followed a 13-year-old girl and took video with a small camera.
- The victim, A.S., testified that the following and videotaping terrified and scared her; her father reported to store managers and 911 in both incidents.
- The State charged stalking under Indiana Code 35-45-10-1, alleging a knowing course of conduct involving repeated harassment that caused fear.
- Sandleben appealed, challenging sufficiency of the evidence, admission of evidence obtained via alleged unlawful arrest, and the sentence.
- The trial court admitted videos/photos from Sandleben’s camera/phone, finding probable cause for arrest and a lawful search incident to arrest.
- The court ultimately affirmed the conviction and sentenced Sandleben to 30 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove stalking? | Sandleben argues insufficiency of coercive contact and harassment. | State asserts intentional following and video constituted impermissible contact and harassment. | Sufficient evidence supported stalking |
| Was the admission of evidence from the arrest proper? | Arrest lacked probable cause; evidence seized should be excluded as fruit of an unlawful arrest. | Arrest had probable cause; seizure of photos/videos was lawful. | Probable cause existed; admission proper; no Fourth or Indiana constitutional violation |
| Does videotaping/following implicate First Amendment protection? | Sandleben asserts his acts were protected expressive activity. | Follow-and-video conduct is nonexpressive; no protected speech issue. | No protected expressive activity; conviction upheld |
| Is the sentence inappropriate given the offense and offender? | Argues for reweighting mitigating factors and nonviolent nature. | Court did not abuse discretion; no cogent argument shows inappropriateness. | Sentence not inappropriate; no appellate reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 2001) (sufficiency and standard of review for evidence)
- Dillard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1085 (Ind. 2001) (evidence sufficiency; appellate review framework)
- VanHorn v. State, 889 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (harassment/impermissible contact; appellate analysis)
- Russell v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (waiver and constitutional claim considerations)
- Ogden v. Robertson, 962 N.E.2d 134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (article I, section 9 analysis for free speech claims)
- Whittington v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1363 (Ind. 1996) (test for restricting expressive activity)
- Holder v. State, 847 N.E.2d 930 (Ind. 2006) (totality of circumstances in Indiana search/seizure analysis)
- Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. 2006) (weight of criminal history in sentencing decisions)
- Pickens v. State, 767 N.E.2d 530 (Ind. 2002) (mitigating factors in sentencing discretion)
- Banks v. State, 841 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (nonviolent crimes and weighting as mitigators)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standard for judicial sentencing review)
- Jackson v. State, 669 N.E.2d 744 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (probable cause and search incident to arrest framework)