Case Information

*1 MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),

this Memorandum Decision shall not be

regarded as precedent or cited before any

court except for the purpose of establishing

the defense of res judicata, collateral

estoppel, or the law of the case.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Lyubov Gore

Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA November 15, 2017 Michael Stickles, Court of Appeals Case No. Appellant-Defendant,

49A05-1703-CR-506 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Angela Dow

Appellee-Plaintiff. Davis, Judge

Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1611-F6-45066 Mathias, Judge.

Michael Stickles (“Stickles”) appeals from the trial court’s order approving a

probation department memorandum concerning the assessment of probation *2 fees. However, because the trial court has subsequently found Stickles indigent to all probation fees, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Facts and Procedural History After a bench trial on February 9, 2017, Stickles was found guilty of Class A

misdemeanor domestic battery. At the sentencing hearing immediately following the trial, Stickles was sentenced to 305 days of non-reporting probation. During the hearing, the following exchange took place:

[Court]: I hope that you are successful. I’ll do no fines, no

court costs. You’ve got enough issues.

[Counsel]: Would the Court be willing to fin[d] Mr. Stickles indigent of the costs of probation?

[Court]: Yes.

Tr. p. 57. Eight days later, the probation department sent the trial court a memorandum

containing the following relevant information:

Appellant’s App. p. 38. Four days after receiving the memorandum, the trial court issued a signed order that indicated:

*3 Id. at 39.

[4] On June 14, 2017, the CCS specified that the trial court amended Stickles’ s

sentence by waiving a previously imposed $50 domestic violence prevention fee. On the same day, the trial court also found Stickles “Indigent as to Fines and Costs,” and specifically indicated “probation fees.” Stickles now appeals.

Discussion and Decision Stickles’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion

when it authorized the probation department to impose fees after Stickles was found indigent to all fees during sentencing. We initially note that the record does not reveal whether the probation

department fees outlined in the memorandum and approved by the trial court were ever actually imposed. Stickles points out , “The record does not reflect that probation followed through and imposed the $250 user’s fee.” Appellant’s Br. at 7. *4 Further, although not cited by either party, ^[1] the trial court made a specific

finding on June 14 that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees. Therefore, because the fees were never imposed, and the trial court has since made an explicit finding that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees, Stickles has received the relief he sought, and as such, his appeal is dismissed as moot. Jones v. State , 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.

[1] Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5), as amended effective January 1, 2010, “permits courts to take judicial notice of ‘records of a court of this state[.]’” Horton v. State , 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160 (Ind. 2016). Court records are presumptively sources of facts “that cannot reasonably be questioned” “in the absence of evidence tending to rebut that presumption.” Id . at 1161.