Ind. Code » Title 35
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 35-38-1-30 (2026)

Sentence; refrain from contact

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 30. A sentencing court may require that, as a condition of a person's executed sentence, the person shall refrain from any direct or indirect contact with an individual.

As added by P.L.104-2008, SEC.21.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2013–2024 · leading case: Adam Anthony Howe v. State of Indiana, 25 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Adam Anthony Howe v. State of Indiana, 25 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 14× “Apparently in response to the Court’s holding in Jarrett, the legislature enacted Ind. Code § 35-38-1-30 , effective July 1, 2008, which provides that “[a] sentencing court may require that, as a condition of a person’s executed sentence, the person shall refrain from any direct…”
Scott Hitch v. State of Indiana, 51 N.E.3d 216 (Ind. 2016). · cites it 3× “Code § 35-38-1-30 (2014);  Seizure of monies earned while incarcerated as a result of the criminal conduct, Ind.”
Bryant E. Wilson v. State of Indiana, 5 N.E.3d 759 (Ind. 2014). · cites it 2× “”); Ind.Code § 35-38-1-30 (2008) (now authorizing trial judges to impose no-contact orders as part of executed sentence).”
James A. Groff v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 10× “Additionally, the trial court imposed a no-contact order pursuant to Indiana Code section 35-38-1-30, which provides: “A sentencing court may require that, as a condition of a person’s executed sentence, the person shall refrain from any direct or indirect contact with an…”
Danny Lewis v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “The statute at issue in this case authorizes such orders during the executed prison sentences of defendants, see I.C. § 35-38-1-30, but the State introduced documents related to the terms of Lewis’s probation imposed under Section 35-38-2-2.”
Ricky L. Sands v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “, we note Ind. Code § 35-38-1-30 provides for a particular consequence upon the commission of a crime.”
Justin Hines v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “” Ind. Code § 35-38-1-30 . Hines contends that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority in this case by ordering that he have no contact with H.”
George Stephens v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 3× “3 or Serving Executed Sentence Under Indiana Code 35-38-1-30” was issued to Stephens under Cause No.”
Jerry D. Vest v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Under Indiana Code section 35-38-1-30, a sentencing court is authorized to order a defendant to have no contact with an individual as a condition of the defendant’s sentence.”
Jose Francisco Mancillas v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to I.C. § 35-38-1-30, “[a] sentencing court may require that, as a condition of a person’s executed sentence, the person shall refrain from any direct or indirect contact with an individual.”
Avante L. Robinson v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “To convict Robinson of Invasion of Privacy, as charged, the State was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson knowingly violated an order issued under Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-30 requiring Robinson to refrain from any direct or indirect contact with L.”
Dustin A. Lane v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2024). · cites it 2× “3 See I.C. § 35-38-1-30 (2008). 4 See I.C. § 35-46-1-15.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.