119 N.E.3d 621
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On August 29, 2017, Teresa Holder was arrested at a backyard gathering after shouting at officers; charged with resisting (Class A misdemeanor) and disorderly conduct (Class B misdemeanor).
- After a bench trial Holder was convicted of disorderly conduct; court sentenced her to 180 days with 174 days suspended and 90 days non-reporting probation.
- The written sentencing order assessed sixteen fees totaling $395 (including $160 probation fees) and a $100 “Public Defense Administration Fee”; the CCS reflected a $445 obligation and $160 probation fees.
- The trial court made no inquiry or findings regarding Holder’s indigency, held no indigency hearing, and did not state whether any costs were suspended.
- Holder paid $195 and completed community service; probation sought application of bond funds and recommended discharge, but no hearing had resolved the outstanding balance on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing probation and other costs without an indigency determination | State: Costs are within trial court discretion and may be imposed | Holder: Court must determine indigency before imposing costs under I.C. §33‑37‑2‑3 | Reversed and remanded: court must determine Holder’s remaining obligation, hold indigency hearing, and assess appropriate costs |
| Whether the court could impose a $100 public defender fee where charges were misdemeanors | State: Fee was properly imposed under I.C. §33‑37‑2‑3 and could be $100 | Holder: For misdemeanors, I.C. §35‑33‑7‑6(c) caps fee at $50 | Reversed: court intended to use §35‑33‑7‑6; $50 is the maximum for misdemeanors; remand for hearing on ability to pay $50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (discussing statutes authorizing public‑defender fee assessments and need to identify statutory basis)
- Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (indigency does not automatically shield defendant from all costs)
- Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (sentencing and cost assessments rest within trial court discretion)
- Mathis v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (court will not reverse cost assessments that fall within statutory parameters)
- Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (review of sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion)
- Wright v. State, 949 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (applying cash bond to costs does not eliminate need for indigency hearing when bond is insufficient)