Man charged with 41 felonies loses bond reduction appeal

A man facing 41 felony charges will not have his bail reduced after the Court of Appeals of Indiana determined the consequences of his case could prove “severe.”

Alan Jones was arrested in October 2020 for Level 6 felony auto theft. He was released the next day on his own recognizance.

In June 2021, the state charged Jones with 38 counts under a new cause number, including one count of corrupt business influence as a Level 5 felony and 37 counts of theft as Level 6 felonies. The Level 6 felonies were all related to the theft of motor vehicles or property valued between $750 and $50,000 that allegedly occurred between November 2016 and April 2021.

At an initial hearing, the Shelby Circuit Court found that Jones “present[ed] a substantial risk of flight or danger” to himself or others. His bond was set at $200,000 surety or 10% cash.

The following month, Jones filed a motion to reduce bond, which the trial court denied.

The state was then permitted to amend the information to add counts 39 through 41, all three of which charged Jones with theft as Level 6 felonies.

In September 2021, Jones filed another motion to reduce his bail bond, which was again denied. Jones then filed a motion to correct error, which was also denied, with the trial court noting, “With at least 20 distinct victims and crimes in the present case, Defendant faces a substantial penalty.”

Upon review, the Court of Appeals of Indiana upheld that decision.

“While Jones does not have a lengthy criminal history, he is accused of committing forty-one felonies against at least twenty different victims over a three-year period, and some of those felonies allegedly occurred while he was out on bail … ,” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. “The accrual of new charges during pretrial release in another matter supports a finding that Jones has shown a ‘disdain for authority, which might indicate that [he] might not recognize and adhere to the authority of the court to bring him to trial.’”

Additionally, Bailey said the potential consequences of Jones’ offenses are “severe.” Also, his bond was set within the bond guidelines established in Shelby County.

As for Jones’ assertion that Indiana Code § 35-33-8-4(b) weighs in his favor because he allegedly has resided in Shelby County for a long time, has an income and a place to live, Bailey wrote that Jones failed to point to evidence supporting his arguments.

The case is Alan Jones v. State of Indiana, 21A-CR-2809.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}