PATRICK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Ladarius Francis Patrick appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In November 2024, Patrick pled guilty to Level 6 felony stalking in Cause No. 29D03-2406-F5-4877. The victim was his wife, T.P., with whom he was going through a divorce. The trial court sentenced Patrick to 910 days, with 32 days executed (time served), 878 days suspended, and 730 days of probation. Patrick was ordered to have no contact with T.P.

[3] Two months later, in January 2025, the State charged Patrick in Cause No. 29D03-2501-F6-570 with three counts of Level 6 felony invasion of privacy and three counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for making phone calls to T.P. on January 11. The State also filed a notice of probation violation in F5-4877, alleging that Patrick violated the conditions of his probation by committing these new offenses and contacting T.P.

[4] In February 2025, the trial court held a combined bench trial in F6-570 and fact-finding hearing in F5-4877.¹ On direct examination, T.P. testified that on January 11, she was sleeping when her phone rang. She answered, and it was Patrick, who said “something about it's going to be on top.” Tr. p. 67. 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 68. 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. The recording was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 7.

[5] On cross-examination, the following exchange occurred between defense counsel and T.P.:

Q Have you been convicted of theft, mam [sic]?

A No sir.

Q You understand you're under oath, correct?

A Yes.

Q Prior to marrying Mr. Patrick, what was your name?

A [T.W.]

․

[Defense counsel]: I would ask the Court to take judicial [notice] of 49F09-1308-FD-*****, ․ [w]herein [T.W.] was convicted of theft on September 16th, 2014.

Id. at 75-76. The trial court asked the State if it had any objection, and the State said no. Accordingly, the court took judicial notice of T.P.’s 2014 conviction for theft. Id. at 76. Defense counsel asked T.P. if she had forgotten about that conviction, and she responded, “No. I thought it was dismissed.” Id. Defense counsel then asked T.P. if she had “been charged on other occasions with theft,” and T.P. said there was a “conversion” case. Id. Defense counsel elicited testimony from T.P. that she had been convicted of conversion in Georgia. Id.

[6] The trial court found Patrick guilty as charged in F6-570 (but only entered judgment of conviction on the three felonies because the misdemeanors were lesser-included offenses). Based on the evidence presented to support those convictions, the court also found that Patrick violated his probation in F5-4877. The court proceeded to hold a sanctions hearing in F5-4877. The State asked the court to order Patrick to serve all his suspended time (878 days), and defense counsel asked the court to continue Patrick on probation. The court revoked Patrick's probation and ordered him to serve 878 days in prison.

[7] Patrick now appeals the revocation of his probation in F5-4877.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Patrick contends that his “probation violation finding should be reversed because it is premised on perjured testimony.” Appellant's Br. p. 11. He claims that T.P. committed perjury when she testified that she had not been convicted of theft. In support, Patrick cites authority providing that “[t]he knowing use of perjured testimony is fundamentally unfair and a conviction obtained by the use of such testimony will not be upheld.” Wallace v. State, 474 N.E.2d 1006, 1008 (Ind. 1985).

[9] The State responds that it isn't clear that T.P. committed perjury, as she clarified that she thought the theft case had been dismissed. And as for the Georgia conviction, T.P. said it was for “conversion” and not “theft,” which defense counsel had asked about. Regardless, the State says it didn't use T.P.’s testimony about her criminal history to prove the probation violation; rather, it used Exhibit 7 and her testimony about the January 11 phone calls. We agree. Although T.P. wasn't more forthcoming about her criminal history, that went to her credibility. Defense counsel argued as much during closing:

So this is a case of believability. Do you believe [T.P.] who is sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and then got up her and said no, I haven't been convicted of theft.

Tr. p. 170. The trial court, however, believed T.P., and this is a determination that we don't second-guess on appeal. See Woods v. State, 892 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 2008). We therefore affirm the trial court's revocation of Patrick's probation.

[10] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There was a bench trial for charges in two other cases as well, but those cases aren't at issue in this appeal.

Vaidik, Judge.

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