Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holder v. State

Court of Appeals of Indiana

February 11, 2019

Teresa L. Holder, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

          Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Carol J. Orbison, Senior Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G19-1708-CM-32260

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Valerie K. Boots Daniel Hageman Marion County Public Defender Agency - Appellate Division Indianapolis, Indiana

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Angela N. Sanchez Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals Indianapolis, Indiana

          MATHIAS, JUDGE.

         [¶1] Teresa Holder ("Holder") appeals the fees imposed for her disorderly conduct conviction. She argues the trial court abused its discretion by imposing probation fees without conducting an indigency hearing. She also argues that the trial court erred by imposing a $100 public defender fee on Holder when she was only charged with misdemeanors.

         [¶2] We reverse and remand.

         Facts and Procedural History

         [¶3] On August 29, 2017, Holder was having a get-together in her back yard when uniformed officers from the Indiana Metropolitan Police Department ("IMPD") entered. The officers proceeded to arrest a man whom the officers believed was armed and had committed a felony. Holder, who was surprised and had been drinking, began to yell. Officers directed her to quiet down, but she continued shouting. Holder was handcuffed without physical incident, although she did direct a variety of expletives at officers. She also told officers that she did not have a weapon on her person, but if she did have a weapon, she would use it on them.

         [¶4] After being handcuffed, Holder yanked away from an officer and attempted to run toward the other individual being arrested. The officer was able to take her to the ground safely, but Holder continued to yell until officers placed her in the back of an IMPD vehicle.

         [¶5] Holder was charged with resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor and disorderly conduct as a class B misdemeanor. After a bench trial held on March 26, 2018, the trial court found Holder guilty of disorderly conduct. The trial court then proceeded immediately to sentencing, ordering Holder to 180 days of jail time, with credit for six days served, and the remaining 174 days suspended, with ninety days of non-reporting probation. Although the trial court made no inquiry into Holder's ability to pay, did not hold an indigency hearing and did not make any mention of court cost and fees, the written sentencing order imposes sixteen separate fees amounting to $395, including probation fees amounting to $160. The trial court also imposed $100 in public defender fees. In an unexplained discrepancy from the sentencing order, the chronological case summary ("CCS") notes fees of $445, but also shows $160 of probation fees.

         [¶6] Holder completed her community service on April 26, 2018 and paid $195 of her financial obligation. On May 16, 2018, the Marion County Probation Department filed a memo with the trial court, requesting that Holder's bond money be applied to her $395 financial obligation. On May 25, 2018, the Probation Department filed a request for discharge, recommending Holder be discharged from probation as scheduled on June 23, 2018. Probation also requested a hearing to address Holder's outstanding financial obligation. The trial court approved the probation department's request for discharge; however, as of the date of appeal, no hearing had been set to address the outstanding balance shown on the CCS in the amount of $250.

         [¶7] Holder appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in two ways. First, Holder argues that the trial court committed error by imposing fees without conducting an indigency hearing. She additionally argues that the trial court erred by imposing a felony-level public defender fee of $100 when she was only charged with misdemeanors.

         Discussion and Decision

         [¶8] Indiana Code section 33-37-2-3 provides the trial court with great flexibility in imposing costs. Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.