The Indiana Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Carey Lee Fleener, Jr. v. State of Indiana, affirming Fleener's conviction for criminal confinement but reversing his conviction for domestic battery. This decision, filed on July 15, 2026, affects Fleener, who was found guilty of both crimes stemming from a domestic dispute with his former fiancée, Donnette Swift.
The court's ruling is significant as it addresses issues of sufficient evidence for criminal confinement and the implications of double jeopardy, which prevents an individual from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
Background
Carey Lee Fleener, Jr. is the former fiancé of Donnette Swift and the father of one of her three children. Fleener moved into Swift's home in November 2024, but their relationship soured, leading to a broken engagement in May 2025. On May 23, 2025, following a heated argument between the couple, Fleener was charged with criminal confinement and domestic battery.
The dispute began when Swift discovered text messages on Fleener's phone that indicated he was communicating with another woman. Upset, she asked him to leave her home, but he refused. The argument escalated, with both parties yelling and Swift attempting to leave through a window. Fleener physically restrained her, which led to the charges against him.
Initially, the state charged Fleener with multiple counts, including criminal confinement, domestic battery, and others. After a bench trial, the court found him guilty of criminal confinement and domestic battery but later vacated one charge due to double jeopardy concerns.
The Ruling
In its opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld Fleener's conviction for criminal confinement, stating, "The evidence shows that Fleener confined Swift by grabbing her, preventing her from escaping through the window, and throwing her onto the floor." The court concluded that the state had presented sufficient evidence to support the conviction, which is classified as a Level 5 felony.
However, the court reversed Fleener's conviction for domestic battery, determining that his convictions for both offenses constituted substantive double jeopardy. The judges noted that the domestic battery charge was based on the same actions that led to the criminal confinement charge. The opinion stated, "Fleener’s acts occurred during the same argument, on the same morning, and at the same house," indicating that the actions were part of a single transaction.
Impact
This ruling has implications for how domestic violence cases are prosecuted in Indiana. The court's decision to reverse the domestic battery conviction underscores the importance of ensuring that defendants are not punished multiple times for the same conduct. This case highlights the need for clarity in charging documents and the necessity of distinguishing between different offenses during prosecution.
By affirming the conviction for criminal confinement while reversing the domestic battery charge, the court has set a precedent regarding the interpretation of double jeopardy in domestic violence cases. This may influence future cases where similar circumstances arise, ensuring that defendants are treated fairly under the law.
What's Next
Fleener's case may still have further legal implications, as the state could potentially seek to appeal the reversal of the domestic battery conviction. However, details regarding any potential appeal or related cases were not available in the court filing.