Brown, J.
Antonio Buford appeals the trial court’s contempt finding and his sentence for domestic battery as a level 6 felony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In 2018, Buford and E.C., who had a child together, were in a relationship. E.C. visited Buford at his home during a weekend in June, they consumed alcohol, and a violent argument ensued during which Buford punched E.C. in the eye while she was holding their infant son. … The State charged Buford as amended with counts of criminal confinement as level 3, level 5, and level 6 felonies, strangulation as a level 6 felony, two counts of domestic battery as level 6 felonies, and criminal recklessness as a level 6 felony under cause number 49G01-1806-F3-20993 (“Cause No. 20993”). It also alleged that he was an habitual offender.
On July 16, 2018, the court issued a no contact order that prohibited Buford from having contact with E.C. “in person, by telephone or letter, through an intermediary, or in any other way, directly or indirectly.”
….
The jury found Buford guilty of one count of domestic battery as a level 6 felony and not guilty of the other offenses. After the verdict, the court indicated that evidence had been presented of a violation of the no contact order which had occurred outside of its presence, set a Rule to Show Cause Hearing on why Buford should not be held in contempt for violating its order, and instructed the prosecutor to bring to the hearing a copy of the redacted version of the jail calls.
On March 7, 2019, the court held a rule to show cause hearing, at which it admitted into evidence the CD it had requested, took judicial notice of its entry of the no contact order, and stated that during trial it had learned that “not only did [Buford] send a letter to [E.C.], as evidence [sic] the redacted telephone calls,” but he also had conversations with her, instructed S.B. to give particular directions to E.C., and had conversations with S.B. “with regard to directing [E.C.] having to do with the facts of the case.”
….
… The court stated: “Mr. Buford you have blatantly without any regard of the Court’s order disrespected the Court and held the Court’s order in distained [sic] and to ensure that there is no further violation of the Court’s order [t]he court is going to find you in contempt of the no contact order that was issued.” After ordering a sanction of ninety days in the Marion County Jail “at this time as a coercive measure,” the court asked if there was anything else from the State and Buford’s counsel, who answered “No Judge” and “No Your Honor,” respectively. …
Also on March 7, 2019, the State charged Buford … with obstruction of justice as a level 5 felony and seven counts of invasion of privacy as class A misdemeanors under Ind. Code § 35-46-1-15.1(a)(5), including Count II which alleged that Buford did knowingly or intentionally violate a no contact order …
The court sentenced Buford in Cause No. 20993 to two-and-one-half years in community corrections in the work release component for his conviction for domestic battery. On May 31, 2019, the court sentenced him in Cause No. 8877 to one year suspended under Count II, which it ordered to be served consecutive to a four-year sentence he received under Count I of that cause and the sentence under Cause No. 20993.
Buford first argues that the sanction for contempt ordered by the trial court was improper. He contends that the contempt hearing involved criminal contempt. The State does not dispute this characterization.
… Accordingly, a criminal contempt sanction is punitive in nature “because its purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court, and it benefits the State rather than the aggrieved party.” …
….
Having found that the contempt sanction was punitive and thus that the sanction of ninety days in the Marion County jail constituted a punishment, we find that the State’s filing, on the same day as the contempt hearing, of Count II concerning the January 3, 2019 invasion of privacy in Cause No. 8877 constitutes double jeopardy concerns. See Hunter v. State, 802 N.E.2d 480, 483 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) … We observe that, despite assuring the court that it would not file the “Invasion of Privacy [count] for January 3, 2019,” the State did precisely that and Buford was convicted and sentenced for that offense. Accordingly, we vacate Buford’s contempt finding under this cause.
….
For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the finding of contempt and affirm Buford’s domestic battery sentence.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.