Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 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

Cara Schaefer Wieneke

Special Asst. to the State Public Defender

Wieneke Law Office, LLC

Plainfield, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Bradley S. Stock,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

April 14, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

24A01-1410-CR-444

Appeal from the Franklin Circuit 

Court.

The Honorable Clay M. Kellerman, 

Judge.

Cause No. 24C02-1203-CM-315

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 2 of 5

[1] Brad Stock appeals his sentence for Invasion of Privacy,1 a class A 

misdemeanor. After Stock pleaded guilty to the offense, the trial court 

sentenced him to a one-year term, with one month executed and eleven months 

suspended to probation. Finding that Stock’s sentence is not inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offense and his character, we affirm.

Facts

[2] On February 15, 2012, Stock received a text message from his neighbor

informing him that J.S. was at Stock’s home. At the time, a protective order 

prohibited Stock from communicating with J.S. 

[3] Stock called his son, who had been home alone before J.S. arrived. Stock’s son 

indicated that J.S. appeared to be intoxicated and that she refused to leave. J.S. 

remained at Stock’s home for more than an hour. 

[4] Stock left work and began to drive home. While on his way home, he noticed 

J.S.’s car. Stock pulled up next to the car and told J.S. to stay away from his 

home. He then drove away. 

[5] On March 7, 2012, the State charged Stock with class A misdemeanor invasion 

of privacy for violating a protective order. On January 15, 2014, Stock pleaded 

guilty to the charge. The trial court accepted this plea and sentenced Stock to a 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 3 of 5

term of one year, with one month executed and eleven months suspended to 

probation. Stock now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] On appeal, Stock challenges the appropriateness of his sentence. Under 

Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), “[t]he 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 burden is on the defendant to persuade us that 

his sentence is inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 

2006). 

[7] Stock pleaded guilty to class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy for knowingly 

or intentionally violating a protective order. Our Code provides that “[a] 

person who commits a Class A misdemeanor shall be imprisoned for a fixed 

term of not more than one (1) year[.]” Ind. Code § 35-50-3-2. The trial court 

sentenced Stock to a term of one year, with one month executed and eleven 

months suspended to probation. 

[8] As to the nature of his offense, Stock argues that he believed he was acting to 

protect his home. He points out that it was J.S. who effectively initiated the 

contact by arriving at his home and that he only spoke with her briefly to tell

her to stay away. As to his character, Stock argues that he had a minimal 

criminal history, consisting of one battery conviction, prior to this incident. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 4 of 5

[9] Initially, we note that eleven months of Stock’s sentence have been suspended 

to probation. When reviewing sentences, this Court “may consider all aspects 

of the penal consequences imposed by the trial judge in sentencing the 

defendant,” including the fact that a portion of the sentence has been suspended 

to probation. Calvert v. State, 930 N.E.2d 633, 643 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) 

(quotations omitted). 

[10] Here, although Stock maintains that J.S. initiated the contact, by the time Stock 

noticed J.S.’s car, she had already left his house. At this point, it was Stock 

who initiated the contact—choosing to violate the protective order when he 

could have simply driven on. Furthermore, although Stock’s criminal history is 

not extensive, it is a criminal history nonetheless. 

[11] While we agree with Stock that mitigating circumstances exist in this case, we 

believe that Stock’s sentence is reflective of these circumstances.2 Here, the 

executed portion of Stock’s sentence is well below the maximum authorized by 

statute. Consequently, we do not find his sentence inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense or his character.

 

 

2 Because the trial court did not enter a sentencing statement in this case, we are uncertain as to which factors 

it found to be aggravating or mitigating. See Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on 

reh’g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007) (“Indiana trial courts are required to enter sentencing statements whenever 

imposing sentence for a felony offense.”) (emphasis added). However, we infer from the fact that the trial 

court chose to suspend such a large portion of Stock’s sentence that it found mitigating circumstances existed 

in this case. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 24A01-1410-CR-444 | April 14, 2015 Page 5 of 5

[12] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

Najam, J., and Friedlander, J., concur.