Title: Timothy Jarrett v. State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Kimberly A. Jackson 
 
 
 
 
Steve Carter 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jodi Kathryn Stein 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court 
________________________________ 
 
No. 49S05-0406-CR-247 
 
TIMOTHY JARRETT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
STATE OF INDIANA, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below). 
 
________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, 49G17-0109-DF-179690 
The Honorable Danielle Gaughan, Commissioner 
 
__________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A05-0306-CR-283 
 
__________________________________ 
 
 
June 22, 2005 
 
 
Shepard, Chief Justice. 
 
 
 
1
 
Following a bench trial, the court sentenced appellant Timothy Jarrett to three years 
executed time for battery, a class D felony, and entered a no-contact order as respects his former 
wife.  While the trial court certainly had the power to enter such protection, it was necessary to 
invoke the procedures in the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act. 
 
 
Timothy and Denise Jarrett were married in 1990 and divorced four years later.  This 
appeal is the product of multiple charges that arose out of a physical confrontation between 
Jarrett and his former wife in the home they occupied with their daughter after Jarrett’s release 
from prison in 2001.  The court acquitted Jarrett on two counts and sentenced him on the battery.  
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-2-1(a)(2)(D) (West 2004).  It ordered that he have no contact with his 
former wife while in prison, an order that also prohibited sending letters to the wife’s residence 
addressed to the daughter. 
 
 
Jarrett appealed, arguing that the conviction had been entered on the wrong charge and 
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the nature of the no-contact order.  A divided 
Court of Appeals directed a technical revision of the judgment entry, but otherwise affirmed.  
Jarrett v. State, 804 N.E.2d 807, 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) vacated.  We granted transfer, and now 
summarily affirm the disposition the Court of Appeals gave to Jarrett’s claims about the 
judgment and the adequacy of the evidence.  Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).   
 
 
Jarrett appeals the no-contact order on grounds that injunctive relief is not among the 
penalties authorized for felonies.  He also questions the propriety of prohibiting contact with his 
daughter in light of the fact that she was not even present during the altercation, a contention that 
won support from Judge Margret Robb.  Jarrett, 804 N.E.2d at 814-15 (Robb, J., dissenting). 
 
 
Jarrett’s challenge to the no-contact order is governed by our recent decision in Laux v. 
State, 821 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2005).  There, we held that the statutes setting the penalties for 
felonies do not, by their own terms, authorize imposition of a no-contact order as part of an 
executed sentence.  Id. at 819.  Of course, when a court suspends part of a sentence, it can 
certainly condition that suspension on no-contact.  Id.
 
 
2
We also noted that Indiana courts possess substantial power to grant injunctive relief to 
those who may be the victims of violence, in accordance with code provisions spelling out the 
procedural and substantive prerequisites.  Id.  The legislature has created a variety of protective 
arrangements, recently revised to meet the various circumstances where a court order may be 
useful.  See Ind. Code Ann. § 5-2-9-5 (West 2002) (listing various forms of protection, along 
with statutory cites). 
 
 
We direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the proper charge on 
which judgment was entered and to vacate the no-contact order.  We otherwise affirm. 
 
Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur. 
 
3