MEMORANDUM DECISION
Apr 14 2015, 9:30 am
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Gregory F. Zoeller
Special Asst. to the State Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
George P. Sherman
Plainfield, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bradley S. Stock, April 14, 2015
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
24A01-1410-CR-444
v. Appeal from the Franklin Circuit
Court.
The Honorable Clay M. Kellerman,
State of Indiana, Judge.
Appellee-Plaintiff Cause No. 24C02-1203-CM-315
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 1 of 5
[1] Brad Stock appeals his sentence for Invasion of Privacy, 1 a class A
misdemeanor. After Stock pleaded guilty to the offense, the trial court
sentenced him to a one-year term, with one month executed and eleven months
suspended to probation. Finding that Stock’s sentence is not inappropriate in
light of the nature of the offense and his character, we affirm.
Facts
[2] On February 15, 2012, Stock received a text message from his neighbor
informing him that J.S. was at Stock’s home. At the time, a protective order
prohibited Stock from communicating with J.S.
[3] Stock called his son, who had been home alone before J.S. arrived. Stock’s son
indicated that J.S. appeared to be intoxicated and that she refused to leave. J.S.
remained at Stock’s home for more than an hour.
[4] Stock left work and began to drive home. While on his way home, he noticed
J.S.’s car. Stock pulled up next to the car and told J.S. to stay away from his
home. He then drove away.
[5] On March 7, 2012, the State charged Stock with class A misdemeanor invasion
of privacy for violating a protective order. On January 15, 2014, Stock pleaded
guilty to the charge. The trial court accepted this plea and sentenced Stock to a
1
Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5
term of one year, with one month executed and eleven months suspended to
probation. Stock now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[6] On appeal, Stock challenges the appropriateness of his sentence. Under
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he Court may revise a sentence authorized by
statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds
that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender.” The burden is on the defendant to persuade us that
his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind.
2006).
[7] Stock pleaded guilty to class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly
or intentionally violating a protective order. Our Code provides that “[a]
person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed
term of not more than one (1) year[.]” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court
sentenced Stock to a term of one year, with one month executed and eleven
months suspended to probation.
[8] As to the nature of his offense, Stock argues that he believed he was acting to
protect his home. He points out that it was J.S. who effectively initiated the
contact by arriving at his home and that he only spoke with her briefly to tell
her to stay away. As to his character, Stock argues that he had a minimal
criminal history, consisting of one battery conviction, prior to this incident.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5
[9] Initially, we note that eleven months of Stock’s sentence have been suspended
to probation. When reviewing sentences, this Court “may consider all aspects
of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the
defendant,” including the fact that a portion of the sentence has been suspended
to probation. Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
(quotations omitted).
[10] Here, although Stock maintains that J.S. initiated the contact, by the time Stock
noticed J.S.’s car, she had already left his house. At this point, it was Stock
who initiated the contact—choosing to violate the protective order when he
could have simply driven on. Furthermore, although Stock’s criminal history is
not extensive, it is a criminal history nonetheless.
[11] While we agree with Stock that mitigating circumstances exist in this case, we
believe that Stock’s sentence is reflective of these circumstances. 2 Here, the
executed portion of Stock’s sentence is well below the maximum authorized by
statute. Consequently, we do not find his sentence inappropriate in light of the
nature of the offense or his character.
2
Because the trial court did not enter a sentencing statement in this case, we are uncertain as to which factors
it found to be aggravating or mitigating. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on
reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (“Indiana trial courts are required to enter sentencing statements whenever
imposing sentence for a felony offense.”) (emphasis added). However, we infer from the fact that the trial
court chose to suspend such a large portion of Stock’s sentence that it found mitigating circumstances existed
in this case.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5
[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5