Joseph J. Roth-Bradley, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Despite a No Contact Order (“NCO”) between Joseph Roth-Bradley and his son's mother, K.H., Roth-Bradley called K.H. four times, attempted to send her a text message, and tried to contact her through a third party–all while Roth-Bradley was incarcerated. A jury convicted Roth-Bradley of invasion of privacy and the trial court sentenced him to 790 days executed. Roth-Bradley appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of his conviction and the appropriateness of his sentence. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Roth-Bradley and K.H. had a child together. When the relationship ended, Roth-Bradley continued to intimidate and scare K.H., one time even holding her at gunpoint. After being charged with invasion of privacy, an NCO was issued by the trial court on February 21, 2023, ordering Roth-Bradley to have no contact with K.H. The order specified:

1. [ROTH-BRADLEY] IS ORDERED TO HAVE NO CONTACT WITH:

[K.H.]

in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or in any other way, directly or indirectly, except through an attorney of record, while released from custody pending trial.

This includes, but is not limited to, acts of harassment, stalking, intimidation, threats, and physical force of any kind.

This provision shall also be effective even if the defendant has not been released from lawful detention.

Appellant's Appendix Vol. 2 at 42 (bold emphasis added, italics in original). Roth-Bradley concedes it was a valid NCO and that he was served with it on November 9, 2023.

[3] On April 17, 2024, Roth-Bradley placed four collect calls to K.H. from the jail. She answered the first three calls but did not speak to Roth-Bradley. For the first two calls, she disconnected the call while the phone system's automated message played. K.H. listened to the automated recording message of the third call long enough to hear a recording saying “Joey,” then she disconnected the call because she recognized the voice as Roth-Bradley's. Transcript Vol. 2 at 111. Roth-Bradley attempted a fourth call to K.H.; however, the jail had blocked him from further calls.

[4] That same day, Roth-Bradley sent a text message to a third party which said:

Text my bm see if shes going to trial or not [K.H.’s phone number redacted] she moved out of her dudes house found out by the courts posting lol shes about half way dumb af lol 1

[5] Exhibits Vol. 3 at 10; Tr. Vol. 2 at 132 [sic throughout]. The third party did not pass this message along. Roth-Bradley also sent a text message directly to K.H., but she did not accept the message.²

[6] Two days later, the State charged Roth-Bradley with Invasion of Privacy,³ a Level 6 felony. In September, a jury found Roth-Bradley guilty. The trial court sentenced Roth-Bradley to 790 days executed in the Department of Correction. Roth-Bradley appeals.

Discussion and Decision

1. Sufficiency of the Evidence

[7] Roth-Bradley argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for invasion of privacy. Our “standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence challenges is well settled.” Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). Sufficiency claims “trigger a deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility, instead reserving those matters to the province of the jury.’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), reh'g denied, cert. denied, 586 U.S. 1090 (2019)). When conducting this review, “we consider only the evidence that supports the jury's determination, not evidence that might undermine it.” Id. “A conviction is supported by sufficient evidence if ‘there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the offense such that a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting Willis v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1065, 1066 (Ind. 2015)).

[8] To convict Roth-Bradley of invasion of privacy as a Level 6 felony, the State had to prove that Roth-Bradley: (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) violated an NCO issued as a condition of pretrial release;⁴ and (3) has a prior unrelated conviction for invasion of privacy. Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(5).

[9] Roth-Bradley concedes that a valid NCO was in place on April 17, 2024, that K.H. was the protected person, and that he had a prior unrelated conviction for invasion of privacy. He contends, however, that his phone calls and text messages on that date did not violate the NCO because he had no direct communication with K.H. We disagree.

[10] Our Court addressed a similar set of facts in Hendricks v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). There, Hendricks placed a collect call to the protected party. Id. at 1052. When the protected party picked up the phone and heard a recording of Hendricks stating his name, the protected party refused to accept the call. Id. This Court found there was sufficient evidence that Hendricks “contacted” the protected party. Id. Roth-Bradley argues that the recording of his name did not constitute a “direct statement” to K.H. and that his other calls to K.H. were not “communication[s].” Appellant's Br. at 14, 15. Even if this was correct, the NCO not only prohibited direct statements or communications, but any contact with K.H. Here, Roth-Bradley called K.H.’s phone number, sent a text message to her phone number, and asked another person to send a text message to her phone. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to convict him of invasion of privacy.

2. Appropriateness of Sentence

[11] Under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), we 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.” We conduct Rule 7(B) review with “substantial deference” to the trial court because the “principal role of [our] review is to attempt to leaven the outliers, and not to achieve a perceived correct sentence.” Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1292 (Ind. 2014) (quotations and citations omitted).

[12] When assessing whether a sentence is inappropriate, we first consider the statutory range established for the class of the offense. Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), reh'g denied. A Level 6 felony carries a sentencing range of six months to two-and-a-half years imprisonment, with an advisory sentence of one year. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Thus, Roth-Bradley's 790-day sentence is less than the maximum but greater than the advisory sentence.

[13] “The nature of the offense is found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offense and the defendant's participation.” Perry v. State, 78 N.E.3d 1, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). When the trial court deviates from the advisory sentence, we consider whether the circumstances of the offense were “more or less egregious” than the typical offense accounted for in the advisory sentence. Norton v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1285, 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). We also consider whether the offense was “accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality.” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015).

[14] Roth-Bradley committed this crime against the victim-witness in his upcoming trial, a woman he had victimized repeatedly, including by holding her at gunpoint in 2018. K.H. told the trial court how she felt “upset” and “scared” when she received these calls. Tr. Vol. 2 at 114. She also told the trial court that she had to take time away from her job because she couldn't “handle everything that [Roth-Bradley] [kept] doing[.]” Id. at 164. Roth-Bradley was undeterred by the court's previous attempts to protect K.H. Roth-Bradley's six attempts to contact K.H. could have been charged as six counts of invasion of privacy and, if convicted, he could have been sentenced to six consecutive sentences. See Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 130 (Ind. 2024) (upholding ten consecutive 300-day executed sentences where Lane was convicted of ten counts of invasion of privacy, one count for each letter he sent to the protected party). Instead, he was charged, convicted, and sentenced on one count. Roth-Bradley continued to violate the NCO until it became impossible for him to do so. Based on these circumstances, Roth-Bradley's violations were more egregious and warranted the upward deviation from the advisory sentence.

[15] A defendant's life and conduct are illustrative of his character. Morris v. State, 114 N.E.3d 531, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. When considering the character of the offender, his criminal history is relevant, as are his “qualities, life, and conduct.” Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied. The significance of a criminal history in assessing a defendant's character and an appropriate sentence varies based on the gravity, nature, and number of prior offenses in relation to the current offense. Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867, 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). Even a minor criminal record reflects poorly on a defendant's character. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 700 (Ind. 2024).

[16] Roth-Bradley's life and conduct paint the picture of a man who has shown little regard for the rule of law and for the well-being of the mother of his son. Roth-Bradley had two prior invasion of privacy convictions, the second of which was a felony; a criminal confinement conviction for holding K.H. at gunpoint; two felony fraud convictions; and a felony battery conviction. See Tr. Vol. 2 at 166. Roth-Bradley, a repeat felon, committed these current crimes against the same victim he had previously terrorized and was banned from contacting, and he did so while being incarcerated. For his violation immediately preceding the current charge, the same trial court judge sentenced Roth-Bradley to 730 days in jail. This judge was familiar with Roth-Bradley's disregard for its orders and progressively increased his sentence accordingly. While Roth-Bradley argues his sentence was “nearly the maximum[,]” his sentence was approximately four months shorter than the maximum sentence for a Level 6 felony. Appellant's Br. at 19. His extensive criminal history, repeated failure to abide by court orders protecting the same victim, and the victim's extreme distress as a result of his actions, all show that Roth-Bradley's sentence is not the kind of outlier that Appellate Rule 7(B) is meant to address. We conclude that his sentence is not inappropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.

Conclusion

[17] We find that the State presented sufficient evidence to support Roth-Bradley's conviction of invasion of privacy, and we find that Roth-Bradley's sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of his offense and his character.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   A detective testified at trial that “bm” refers to “[b]aby mama” and “af” refers to “[a]s [f]***.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 132.

2.   A detective testified at trial that a receiving party has the option to accept or deny a text message sent from an inmate before having the ability to view the message.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(5). Although the jury convicted Roth-Bradley of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, outside the presence of the jury, he admitted to a prior conviction which elevated his offense to a Level 6 felony.

4.   The NCO was issued after Roth-Bradley's pretrial release on a separate invasion of privacy charge.

DeBoer, Judge.

Judges Bailey and Vaidik concur. Bailey, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.