Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1702-CR-407 | September 11, 2017 Page 1 of 5

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Richard Walker

Anderson, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General

Chandra K. Hein

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Latoy Kisha Jordan,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

September 11, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

48A04-1702-CR-407

Appeal from the Madison Circuit 

Court

The Honorable David A. Happe, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

48C04-1512-F5-2099

Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1702-CR-407 | September 11, 2017 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary

[1] Latoy Kisha Jordan appeals the trial court’s revocation of her probation. She 

contends that the evidence is insufficient to support revocation. Finding the 

evidence sufficient, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On December 9, 2015, the State charged Jordan with level 6 felony criminal 

recklessness and level 5 felony carrying a handgun without a license. In March 

2016, Jordan and the State entered into a plea agreement whereby Jordan 

agreed to plead guilty to both charges in exchange for a sentencing cap of two 

years on any executed sentence imposed. The agreement further provided that 

Jordan would have no contact with the victim of one of her offenses, Amanda 

Folden. On April 11, 2016, the trial court sentenced Jordan to concurrent terms 

of two years executed for the level 6 felony and two years executed, plus three 

years suspended to probation for the level 5 felony. The terms and conditions 

of Jordan’s probation reiterated that she must comply with the no-contact order 

regarding Folden.

[3] The State filed a notice of probation violation on October 26, 2016, alleging that 

Jordan violated her probation by committing a new criminal offense, i.e., class 

A misdemeanor invasion of privacy. During the probation revocation hearing, 

Folden testified that, despite the no-contact order, Jordan had contacted her at 

least six times. Jordan told Folden that she wished Folden was dead. Folden 

contacted the authorities, and a caseworker spoke with Jordan and warned her 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1702-CR-407 | September 11, 2017 Page 3 of 5

to stop contacting Folden. Jordan did not stop, and continued to contact 

Folden. Based on the evidence presented, the trial court found that Jordan 

violated her probation, revoked one year of her probation, and ordered her to 

serve that year on in-home detention. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[4] “Probation is a matter of grace left to trial court discretion, not a right to which 

a criminal defendant is entitled.” Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184, 188 (Ind.

2007). It is within the trial court’s discretion to determine the conditions of 

probation and to revoke probation if those conditions are violated. Heaton v. 

State, 984 N.E.2d 614, 616 (Ind. 2013). A revocation proceeding is civil in 

nature, and the State must prove its allegations by only a preponderance of the 

evidence. Ind. Code § 35-38-2-3(f). We review insufficiency of evidence claims 

in a probation proceeding as we do any other sufficiency of the evidence 

question. Pierce v. State, 44 N.E.3d 752, 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We will not 

reweigh evidence or judge credibility of witnesses. Id. We look only at the 

evidence favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. One 

violation of a condition of probation is enough to support a probation 

revocation. Id. If the trial court’s finding of a violation is supported by 

substantial evidence of probative value, then we will affirm the revocation of 

probation. Id. When the alleged probation violation is the commission of a new 

crime, conviction of the new crime is not required. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1702-CR-407 | September 11, 2017 Page 4 of 5

[5] Pursuant to her plea agreement, Jordan was ordered to have no contact with 

Folden, and one of the terms and conditions of Jordan’s probation was that she 

comply with the no-contact order regarding Folden. Tr. at 22; Appellant’s App. 

Vol. 2 at 49, 52. Another condition of Jordan’s probation was that she not 

commit any criminal offense. In its notice of probation violation, the State 

alleged that on or about October 17, 2016, Jordan committed invasion of 

privacy. To prove that Jordan committed that offense, the State was required to 

prove that she knowingly or intentionally violated a no-contact order issued as a 

condition of probation. See Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(6). 

[6] The State established Jordan’s commission of invasion of privacy by a 

preponderance of the evidence. The State presented evidence that Jordan 

contacted Folden numerous times while Jordan was incarcerated at the Marion 

County Volunteers of America. Jordan maintains that there was insufficient 

“proof that [a no-contact order] actually existed” regarding Folden because the 

State failed to specifically offer such order into evidence. Appellant’s Br. at 11. 

However, Randy Tracy, an investigator with the prosecutor’s office, testified 

that he specifically determined that there was a no-contact order in place under 

cause number 48C04-1512-F5-2099, before he requested Jordan’s caseworker to 

speak to Jordan and instruct her to cease contacting Folden. Moreover, there is 

no question that the terms and conditions of probation, as well as the plea 

agreement which included the no-contact order, were part of the trial court’s 

record in this cause. During the revocation hearing, Jordan never challenged 

the existence of the no-contact order or her knowledge thereof, she simply 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A04-1702-CR-407 | September 11, 2017 Page 5 of 5

claimed that it was Folden who was initiating the contact. Jordan’s 

insufficiency of the evidence argument in this regard is without merit, and her 

additional assertions challenging the sufficiency of the evidence are simply 

requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence, a task not within our 

prerogative on appeal. As the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence 

that Jordan committed invasion of privacy, we affirm the trial court’s 

revocation of one year of her probation.

[7] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.