PATRICK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ladarius Francis Patrick was convicted of six counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy and one count of Level 6 felony unlawful surveillance in three cases involving the same victim. The trial court sentenced him to 17.5 years, with 4 years executed, 13.5 years suspended, and 8 years of probation. Patrick now appeals his sentence, arguing that it is inappropriate. We disagree and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] After a decade of marriage, T.P. filed for divorce from Patrick in August 2023 (their marriage was later dissolved in August 2025). Patrick was ordered to have no contact with T.P. In June 2024, the State charged Patrick with stalking T.P. (he pled guilty in November and was sentenced to probation). In October, the State charged Patrick with Level 6 felony unlawful surveillance in Cause No. 29D03-2410-F6-8538 for placing a tracking device (AirTag) in T.P.’s car without her knowledge while he was the subject of a protective order.

[3] In January 2025, while Patrick was on probation in the stalking case and out on bond in F6-8538, the State brought two additional cases against him. In Cause No. 29D03-2501-F6-570, Patrick was charged with three counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy and three counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for contacting T.P. on January 11, in violation of three no-contact orders. In Cause No. 29D03-2501-F6-719, Patrick was charged with three counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy and three counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for contacting T.P. on January 13, in violation of the same three no-contact orders.

[4] In February 2025, the trial court held a combined bench trial in F6-8538, F6-570, and F6-719.¹ For the unlawful-surveillance count, T.P. testified that she found an AirTag hidden in her car that was linked to Patrick's phone number. For the January 11 invasion-of-privacy counts, T.P. testified that she was sleeping that day when her phone rang. She answered, and it was Patrick, who said “something about it's going to be on top.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 133. She “couldn't make out what he was saying,” and he eventually hung up. Id. He called back and said, “I'm out front.” Id. at 134. T.P. “immediately called 911” because she was “afraid.” Id. While she was waiting for the police to arrive, Patrick called back again, and she recorded this phone call using her iPad. And for the January 13 invasion-of-privacy counts, T.P. testified that Patrick called her that day and said she “had him F'ed up” and was “allowing these white folks to tear the family apart and that he's got something for [her] and he's going to show [her] and that ․ no sin goes unpunished.” Id. at 139.

[5] In F6-8538, the trial court found Patrick guilty of Level 6 felony unlawful surveillance. In both F6-570 and F6-719, the court found Patrick guilty as charged but only entered judgment of conviction on the felonies because the misdemeanors were lesser-included offenses.

[6] At the sentencing hearing, evidence was presented that Patrick had 15 felony convictions and 4 misdemeanor convictions and had served time in federal prison in 2 different cases. The trial court identified several aggravators: (1) Patrick's criminal history, which included “multiple allegations of abuse of individuals, violations of restraining orders and court orders, deceit, bad checks, theft, conversions and ․ making money off of selling drugs to other people”; (2) all three cause numbers involved similar offenses against T.P., which were similar to Patrick's stalking conviction against her; and (3) Patrick “continue[d] to use any method [he could] figure out” to contact T.P. Tr. Vol. 3 p. 34. The court found no mitigators and sentenced Patrick as follows:

F6-8538 (Level 6 felony unlawful surveillance)

910 days with 730 days executed in the Department of Correction and 180 days suspended

F6-570 (three counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy)

Count IV: 910 days with 730 days on community corrections home detention and 180 days suspended

Count V: 910 days suspended to probation

Count VI: 910 days suspended to probation

F6-719 (three counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy)

Count IV: 910 days suspended with 365 days of probation

Count V: 910 days suspended with 365 days of probation

Count VI: 910 days suspended with 365 days of probation

Appellant's App. Vol. 2 pp. 130-32.² The court ordered the sentences for all 7 counts to be served consecutively, for a total of 17.5 years, with 4 years executed (2 years in the DOC followed by 2 years on home detention) and the remaining 13.5 years suspended, and 8 years of probation.³ Tr. Vol. 3 pp. 38-39; see also Appellant's Br. p. 12 (“Patrick's sentence adds up to four years executed (730 days at DOC and 730 days through community corrections), followed by eight years of probation, translating to a total of 12 years under the thumb of the trial court.”). The court also ordered Patrick to have no contact with T.P.

[7] Patrick now appeals his sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Patrick contends that his sentence is inappropriate and asks us to revise it under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), which provides that an appellate 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 court's role under Rule 7(B) is to “leaven the outliers,” and “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given case.” Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)). Because we generally defer to the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, defendants must persuade us that their sentences are inappropriate. Schaaf v. State, 54 N.E.3d 1041, 1044-45 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

[9] The sentencing range for a Level 6 felony is 6 months to 2.5 years, with an advisory sentence of 1 year. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7(b). Here, the trial court sentenced Patrick to the maximum term for each of the 7 counts but suspended most of that time, resulting in an executed sentence of 4 years plus 8 years of probation.

[10] As for the nature of the offenses, Patrick claims that they were “not violent” and “he did not threaten violence against TP.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. Even assuming this is true, the trial court explained that given Patrick's persistence in contacting T.P. in violation of several court orders, he posed a danger to her:

I want you to be subject to my No Contact Order as long as possible. Now I don't think it should be necessary for you to have any more overall time than [what] the recommendation is in this case. However, I do believe that if I'm wrong and we have any more of this kind of conduct, I want to be able to give you as much time as I can as far away from the world as I can place you because you're dangerous and if we don't get you stopped, somebody's going to get killed. It may be you, frankly, or it may be [T.P.]. But it's got to stop, and we've had enough.

Tr. Vol. 3 p. 36. The nature of the offenses does not support revision of Patrick's sentence.

[11] Patrick's character does not support revision of his sentence either. As Patrick himself acknowledges, at the time of sentencing he had 15 felony convictions and 4 misdemeanor convictions and had served time in federal prison in 2 different cases. Patrick notes that people wrote letters in support of his character. But the trial court observed that it wasn't “sure that everybody who's been writing letters knows about the history of this case.” Id. at 21. Given the repetitive nature of Patrick's offenses against T.P. and his extensive criminal history, he has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate. See Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 127 (Ind. 2024) (affirming defendant's executed sentence of more than 8 years for 10 counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for sending 10 letters to his ex-wife from prison in violation of a no-contact order because his “crimes and character indicate that he poses a continuing danger of restarting a cycle of physical and emotional abuse towards [her]”). We therefore affirm the trial court.⁴

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also alleged that Patrick violated his probation in the stalking case by committing the offenses in F6-570. The trial court held a fact-finding hearing at the same time as the combined bench trial and revoked Patrick's probation. We addressed the revocation of Patrick's probation in a separate appeal. See Patrick v. State, No. 25A-CR-1030 (Ind. Ct. App. Sept. 30, 2025).

2.   On appeal, Patrick does not argue that his three convictions for Level 6 felony invasion of privacy in each cause number violate double-jeopardy principles.

3.   On appeal, Patrick “concedes the 8538, 570, and 719 sentences are mandatorily consecutive under Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(e).” Appellant's Br. p. 11.

4.   Patrick also contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. As the State points out, Patrick doesn't make any arguments about aggravators or mitigators. Instead, he notes that none of his convictions are for “crimes of violence” as defined in Indiana Code section 35-50-1-2(a) (but notably doesn't discuss the consecutive-sentencing limitation in subsection (d)) and that the court didn't follow the probation department's sentencing recommendation. These are challenges to the length of Patrick's sentence, which we just addressed under Appellate Rule 7(B).

Vaidik, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.