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