Jose Arcia De La Cruz v. State of Indiana
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 272
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jose Arcia De La Cruz was convicted at a bench trial of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, a Class C misdemeanor; sentenced to 60 days (56 suspended) and 180 days non-reporting probation.
- At sentencing the court found De La Cruz indigent, said it would not impose court costs/fines/fees, and stated it would order probation and that any fees for non-reporting probation would be assessed by applying a sliding-scale ability-to-pay.
- The written probation order listed standard conditions to pay court-ordered fines, costs, and fees, and a “sliding scale for probation fees,” but the “ordered amount” column for administrative and user fees was blank or blacked out.
- The Marion County probation department subsequently assessed $220 in administrative and user probation fees, which De La Cruz paid; he appealed the trial court’s allowance for the probation department to assess those fees.
- The State argued the appeal was moot because De La Cruz completed probation and paid the fees; the Court of Appeals rejected mootness because effective relief (reimbursement) was available and considered the statutory scheme and local rule interplay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (De La Cruz) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the probation department to assess probation fees instead of the court imposing them | The court’s oral and written references plus Marion County local rule permit assessing probation fees and the local rule creates a presumption that fees are imposed | Only the trial court has discretion to impose probation fees; the court did not actually order amounts, so probation department had no authority to assess fees | Reversed: trial court abused its discretion; probation department lacked authority to impose fees absent a court order; remanded to vacate fees and reimburse defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 61 N.E.3d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (holds court — not probation department — must impose probation fees; vacated fees where sentencing order lacked specific amounts)
- Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (sentencing courts must impose fees within statutory parameters)
- Jones v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (mootness doctrine: appellate court will not decide issues where it cannot provide effective relief)
- Carey v. Haddock, 877 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (satisfaction of a judgment generally moots an appeal)
- Gill v. Evansville Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 970 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2012) (trial courts may adopt local rules so long as they do not conflict with statute or supreme court rules)