Appeals lawyers spar over whether trial court abused discretion in Jordan sentencing

Margaret Bailey Turner, an attorney with the Appellate Division of the Public Defender’s Office, told the appellate panel the only issue before the court was “whether the trial court abused its discretion” by ordering that defendant Christopher (Mister) Jordan serve his full sentence in confinement after pleading guilty to two charges stemming from a Dyer County incident in Dec. 2022.

Turner said Jordan agreed in his plea to an effective 10-year sentence — eight years on one count and two years on the other — but argued the trial court erred by over-relying on his criminal history and failing to place sufficient findings on the record to allow meaningful appellate review. “We ask that this court find that the trial court abused its discretion, and remand for proper sentencing, or order that Mister Jordan serve the rest of his sentence either on probation or in community corrections,” Turner said.

Katie Neff, arguing on behalf of the state, urged the panel to affirm. Neff said the trial court’s confinement order was justified by the seriousness of the underlying conduct and Jordan’s extensive prior record. “The defendant’s criminal history evinces a lifetime of criminality and violence,” Neff said, adding that Jordan had been given numerous prior opportunities for alternative sentences and had not rehabilitated.

The parties disputed several record facts that underpinned the trial court’s sentencing findings. Neff described the underlying incident as escalating from an argument with an ex-girlfriend to Jordan’s brandishing a shotgun, striking the woman in the head with the shotgun, pointing the weapon at three minor children and threatening to shoot them. Police, she said, found the shotgun near him, a backpack containing three other firearms and “76 grams of marijuana.” Neff also told the panel the defendant had 24 misdemeanor convictions, five felony convictions — including two violent felonies — and had received 14 or 15 prior grants of an alternative sentence.

Turner conceded Jordan’s extensive record but said it showed a recent decline in criminal activity and argued that the trial court relied on erroneous factual impressions. She told the court the pre-sentence report and testimony showed Jordan had been employed for three consecutive years leading up to sentencing and had a stable placement with his aunt, contrary to the trial court’s finding that he had only been at his current job for three weeks and had no permanent address. Turner also said there was no record of probation violations aside from failures to appear, and asked the panel to remand or order alternative handling such as probation or community corrections.

The court and counsel also disputed failures-to-appear and other record entries. Neff said the state’s record showed failures to appear as recently as 2022 and again in 2007; Turner said her technical record showed only a 2007 failure to appear and misdemeanor entries in 2021. The defense emphasized family support, prior periods of sobriety and successful employment as indicia that Jordan could comply with community supervision; the state pointed to repeated prior grants of alternative sentencing that had not deterred subsequent offenses.

Both sides addressed statutory sentencing considerations. Turner argued the trial court failed to place sufficient findings tying its decision to the statutory purposes and principles of sentencing and to required statistical information, hampering appellate review. Neff replied that the trial court explicitly considered the relevant confinement factors and the frequency of such cases and that the record supported the court’s factual determinations about employment, transportation and housing stability.

The panel thanked counsel for their briefs and arguments and recessed; no decision was announced at argument. The defendant remains incarcerated pending the appeal, counsel said.