Adam Whitaker v. State of Indiana
87 N.E.3d 1139
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In October 2016 Whitaker was charged with misdemeanors (domestic battery and related counts) and was later found guilty of domestic battery and of invasion of privacy in a separate cause.
- At sentencing (May 2, 2017) the trial court found Whitaker indigent for fines and costs as to one cause, sentenced him to 365 days with 359 suspended, placed him on 359 days probation, and ordered substance-abuse evaluation/treatment; the court did not announce probation fees at the hearing.
- The written sentencing order and probation order referenced a “sliding scale” for probation and substance-abuse fees, but the monetary/"ordered amount" fields for specific probation fees were left blank or blacked out on the probation form.
- The Marion County Probation Department submitted a Bond Release Memo stating Whitaker owed $740 and requested the clerk transfer his posted bond to probation to cover the balance; the trial court approved and ordered the bond transferred to MCCC for $740.
- Whitaker appealed, arguing the court never imposed probation fees as a condition of probation and thus the probation department lacked authority to assess and collect the $740; the State relied on a Marion County local rule creating a presumption of probation fees and on the sliding-scale language in the orders.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court did not order probation fees and that authorizing the probation department to assess and collect them was an abuse of discretion; it reversed the bond-transfer order and remanded to vacate and refund the fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in releasing Whitaker’s $740 bond to probation to cover probation fees | State: local rule LR49-CR00-115 and the orders’ sliding-scale language create a presumption that probation fees were imposed; bond transfer is consistent with that intent | Whitaker: court did not impose probation fees at sentencing (monetary columns blank/blacked out); probation department lacks authority to unilaterally assess and collect fees | Court: trial court did not order probation fees; authorizing probation to assess/collect them was an abuse of discretion; reversed and remanded to vacate fees and order reimbursement |
Key Cases Cited
- De La Cruz v. State, 80 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court’s blanked/blackened monetary fields and absence of a clear fee order show intent not to impose probation fees; probation department may not independently impose fees)
- Burnett v. State, 74 N.E.3d 1221 (Ind. Ct. App.) (trial court, not probation department, has discretion to impose probation fees; probation may petition court to impose fees)
- Coleman v. State, 61 N.E.3d 390 (Ind. Ct. App.) (similar holding that probation department cannot unilaterally assess fees where court did not impose them)
- Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793 (Ind. Ct. App.) (requirements for indigency hearing before imposing fines/costs and review standard for sentencing decisions)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing sentencing decisions)