Jason A. Henderson v. State of Indiana
44 N.E.3d 811
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Henderson and his ex-wife Hahn share two children; Hahn has primary custody and a No Contact Order/Protective Order restricted Henderson’s contact to visitation-related communication.
- While on probation for a 2013 invasion-of-privacy conviction involving Hahn, Henderson allegedly yelled at the children, grabbed Hahn’s car window, and punched the car fender, causing a large dent.
- Charges included a Class D felony invasion of privacy (later dismissed) and two Class A misdemeanors: criminal mischief and invasion of privacy. Henderson pleaded guilty to the two Class A misdemeanors.
- At sentencing the trial court considered Henderson’s extensive criminal history (multiple felonies and misdemeanors, several involving Hahn) as aggravators.
- The court ordered consecutive executed sentences of 365 days for each misdemeanor (total 730 days) and imposed a $5,000 fine for each count (aggregate $10,000) but did not hold an indigency hearing before imposing fines.
- Henderson appealed, arguing the consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion and that the court erred by imposing fines without determining ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether consecutive sentences were an abuse of discretion | State: trial court acted within discretion given aggravators | Henderson: offenses arise from same conduct; aggravators insufficient | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; defendant’s criminal history was a valid aggravator supporting consecutive terms |
| Whether court erred by imposing $5,000 fines without an indigency hearing | State: fines within court’s sentencing discretion | Henderson: court must determine ability to pay; was indigent (appointed counsel) | Remanded — court must hold an indigency hearing per Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18 before finalizing fines; court may still impose fines but must follow hearing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Gellenbeck v. State, 918 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for consecutive vs. concurrent sentences)
- Owens v. State, 916 N.E.2d 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (at least one aggravator required for consecutive sentences)
- Dunn v. State, 900 N.E.2d 1291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (no categorical bar to consecutive misdemeanors)
- Bex v. State, 952 N.E.2d 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (sentencing discretion covers fines, fees, costs)
- Whedon v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1276 (Ind. 2002) (trial court must not incarcerate indigent defendant for nonpayment; indigency often determined at end of incarceration)
- Briscoe v. State, 783 N.E.2d 790 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appointment of counsel implies indigency but is not conclusive for ability to pay fines)