Joshua Batchelor v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 27, 2017
• Docket: 15A01-1606-CR-1245
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jan 27 2017, 9:46 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Joshua Batchelor, January 27, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 15A01-1606-CR-1245 v. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan Cleary, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 15D01-1601-CM-27

Altice, Judge.

Case Summary

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1606-CR-1245 | January 27, 2017 Page 1 of 5 [1] Joshua Batchelor appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of class A

misdemeanor invasion of privacy. His sole challenge is to the sufficiency of the

evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] Batchelor was arrested on a parole violation in August 2015 and taken to the

Reception Diagnostic Center (RDC) to be processed for intake into the

Department of Correction. He remained at RDC until his transfer to the

Branchville Correctional Facility (Branchville) on September 10, 2015. The

following day, Batchelor was transferred to the Franklin County Jail, where he

remained until December 17, 2015. At that point, he was transferred back to

Branchville.

[4] Shortly after arriving at RDC, Batchelor sent letters to Margie Gibson and her

father. Gibson responded with a breakup letter. On September 8, 2015, Gibson

obtained an ex parte order for protection (protective order), which prohibited

Batchelor from, among other things, “directly or indirectly communicating with

[Gibson].” Exhibits at 23. Batchelor was served with the protective order on

September 9, 2015, while he was at RDC.

[5] On January 4, 2016, two letters arrived in the mail for Gibson at her parents’

home, where she had previously lived. The letters were both postmarked

December 31, 2015, and the return address indicated the letters were sent by

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1606-CR-1245 | January 27, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Batchelor from Branchville. The handwritten letters, however, bore the dates

September 7 and 8, 2015. Batchelor drew a smiley face over the date on the

September 8 letter.

[6] At his jury trial for invasion of privacy, Batchelor testified that he wrote the

letters at RDC prior to being served with the protective order. He claimed he

did not mail the letters until he arrived at Branchville on September 10, 2015,

because he needed envelopes. According to Batchelor, he received two

envelopes at intake at Branchville, addressed them, and gave them to an officer

in his dorm that night for mailing. The letters, however, were not mailed until

December 31, 2015.

[7] Despite Batchelor’s testimony, the jury found him guilty of invading Gibson’s

privacy by violating the protective order. On May 4, 2016, the trial court

sentenced Batchelor to an executed term of sixty days. Batchelor now appeals,

challenging only the sufficiency of the evidence.

Discussion & Decision

[8] On review for sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the conviction. Drane v. State,

867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses

or reweigh evidence, and we will affirm unless no reasonable fact-finder could

find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not

necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1606-CR-1245 | January 27, 2017 Page 3 of 5 innocence; rather, the evidence will be found sufficient if an inference may

reasonably be drawn from it to support the conviction. Id. at 147.

[9] Batchelor argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his

conviction. He acknowledges that he was served at RDC with the protective

order on September 9 and claims that he mailed the letters the next day at

Branchville. Despite the fact that the letters were indisputably mailed after he

received notice of the protective order, Batchelor asserts that the State had to

show that he knew of the order when he wrote the letters. Batchelor provides no

authority for his flawed proposition.

[10] Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1 codifies the offense of invasion of privacy. As

elements of the offense, the State must show that the defendant knowingly or

intentionally violated some form of protective order. Chavers v. State, 991

N.E.2d 148, 151 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. In this case, Batchelor was

alleged to have violated the protective order by directly or indirectly

communicating with Gibson. “Communication occurs when a person makes

something known or transmits information to another.” Kelly v. State, 13

N.E.3d 902, 905 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Wright v. State, 688 N.E.2d 224,

226 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)).

[11] Batchelor’s act of writing the letters did not violate the protective order because

without mailing them there was no communication with Gibson. The illegal

communication occurred as a result of his mailing the letters to Gibson. For

our purposes, it is immaterial whether the letters were mailed on September 10

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1606-CR-1245 | January 27, 2017 Page 4 of 5 or December 31, as both dates were after Batchelor had notice of the protective

order. Accordingly, the State presented sufficient evidence that Batchelor

knowingly violated the protective order by communicating with Gibson after

having received notice of the protective order.

[12] Judgment affirmed.

[13] Riley, J. and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 15A01-1606-CR-1245 | January 27, 2017 Page 5 of 5