A southern Indiana man who followed the same teenage girl through two stores on separate occasions, staying as close as five feet to her at all times, could not convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his felony conviction for stalking needed to be overturned.

Steven M. Sandleben was charged with stalking 13-year-old A.S. after closely following her section by section and aisle by aisle through Target and Michaels stores. He also videotaped her as he followed her. A.S.’s father called the police after the second incident, and Sandleben was arrested and charged with stalking.

In Steven M. Sandleben v. State of Indiana, 82A01-1407-CR-284, he claimed that the state didn’t prove that he stalked the teenager, but the COA affirmed that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandleben: (1) knowingly or intentionally (2) engaged in a course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of the victim (3) that would cause a reasonable person to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened and (4) that actually caused the victim to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, or threatened.

Sandleben argued that he was free to videotape whomever he wanted while in public, but the judges pointed out that filming A.S. was not the basis for the stalking charge, rather it was it his intentional, repeated acts of following the girl. A.S. testified that Sandleben’s actions made her nervous and scared.

The COA also determined there was no error in admitting evidence obtained as a result of his arrest. Sandleben’s rights were not violated under either the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution because officers had probable cause to arrest him for stalking. Thus, the photos or videos on his phone or camera were probative evidence of his conduct toward A.S.

They also affirmed his 30-month sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and his character. The appeals court noted that Sandleben was convicted of two counts of Class D felony voyeurism just prior to the instant conviction, and also has misdemeanor convictions for public voyeurism and possession of paraphernalia. His sentence is within the sentencing range for a Class D felony.

Jennifer Nelson for www.theindianalawyer.com

Facts from an incident that do not result in a felony conviction cannot be taken into consideration by a judge when determining a person is disqualified from filing for mandatory expungement of a different felony conviction resulting from the same incident, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Monday.

Johnnie M. Trout Jr. filed a petition in January 2014 for mandatory expungement of Class D felony convictions criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon and pointing a firearm. Those convictions were handed down in 1998. At that time, Trout was charged but not convicted of two other counts, including attempted murder.

The law in effect at the time Trout filed his petition mandates granting an expungement unless a person is convicted of a felony that resulted in bodily injury to another person. The judge, when considering the petition, took into account the attempted murder charge that Trout was not convicted of, in which a victim was accidently shot and injured while reaching for Trout’s gun. The judge did not believe it was appropriate to turn a “blind eye” to the facts of the entire case.

But the statute is clear that the petition for expungement should be denied if Trout had a felony conviction that resulted in a bodily injury to another person. The two charges he was convicted of did not involve bodily injury, Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in Johnnie M. Trout Jr. v. State of Indiana, 12A04-1409-MI-403.

Therefore, these two Class D felony convictions do not disqualify him from mandatory expungement. And because this is the only basis upon which the state challenged Trout’s petition, the trial court erred in denying the petition. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.