FILED
Sep 21 2016, 8:01 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Suzy St. John Gregory F. Zoeller
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana Paula J. Beller
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Andre C. Coleman, September 21, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1511-CR-1999
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Allan W. Reid,
Appellee-Plaintiff Commissioner
The Honorable Linda E. Brown,
Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1506-CM-20752
Mathias, Judge.
[1] Following a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Andre Coleman
(“Coleman”) was convicted of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication. He
was ordered to serve 365 days in jail with 363 days suspended to probation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 1 of 9
Coleman presents two issues on appeal, which we restate as whether the trial
court abused its discretion in imposing a supplemental public defender fee,
probation fees, and a drug and alcohol treatment fee.
[2] We vacate the imposition of the supplemental public defender and probation
fees and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] At approximately 1:20 a.m. on June 13, 2015, Indianapolis Airport Police
Officer Julianna Matthews (“Officer Matthews”) was out on patrol when she
noticed a car parked in the shoulder along the airport’s North Access Road.
Officer Matthews was concerned because the car was protruding about two or
three feet into the roadway, so she stopped to investigate. As she approached
the car and knocked on its window, Officer Matthews encountered Coleman in
the driver’s seat, who appeared to have been asleep. Coleman rolled down the
window and spoke slowly to Officer Matthews. He was unable to keep his eyes
open or his head still. Coleman admitted to drinking a “couple of beers” but
stated that he was not intoxicated. Tr. p. 7. Based on this behavior, Officer
Matthews believed that Coleman was under the influence and proceeded to
conduct standardized field sobriety tests after Officer Tyler Frankel (“Officer
Frankel”) arrived at the scene.
[4] Coleman attempted to complete the first test but failed. Officer Matthews tried
to administer two more sobriety tests, but Coleman failed because he refused to
complete either test. Officer Matthews then arrested Coleman for public
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 2 of 9
intoxication and due to an active warrant in an unrelated case. Appellant’s
App. p. 12.
[5] On June 13, 2015, the State charged Coleman with two counts of Class B
misdemeanor public intoxication. That same day, the trial court held an initial
hearing and found Coleman to be indigent. After a thorough examination of
Coleman’s financial situation, the court appointed an attorney at public expense
with no reimbursement requirement. Appellant’s App. p. 17.
[6] On September 21, 2015, a bench trial was held, and the trial court took the issue
under advisement. The trial court found Coleman guilty on both counts and
merged Count II into Count I on October 5, 2015. On September 26, 2015, the
trial court held a sentencing hearing and ordered Coleman to serve 365 days in
jail with 363 days suspended to probation and to take an alcohol and drug
treatment class. Upon Coleman’s completion of the class, his probation would
become non-reporting. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court found Coleman
indigent as to fines and costs. Tr. p. 34. Coleman asked the court if he had to
pay for the alcohol and drug treatment class to which the court responded,
“Yes, yeah.” Tr. p. 33. However, the court never inquired about Coleman’s
financial situation at this time.
[7] The trial court’s sentencing order also did not list a public defender fee or any
other court costs or fees. Appellant’s App. p. 11. Although the sentencing order
indicated that Coleman was required to participate in alcohol and drug
treatment as part of his sentence, his total monetary obligation totaled $0. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 3 of 9
The order of probation also indicated that Coleman was required to complete
an alcohol and drug treatment program.1 However, the order of probation did
not designate an amount owed for probation user fees. Appellant’s App. p. 27.
[8] One day after sentencing, Coleman was charged $640 in court fees, which
included a $50 supplemental public defender fee. The case transaction showed a
breakdown of all of the fees including: a $250 alcohol and drug service program
user fee, a $50 adult probation administrative fee, a $50 supplemental public
defender fee, and a $2902 adult probation user fee. On April 22, 2016,
Coleman’s balance remained at $640. Coleman now appeals.
Standard of Review
[9] Sentencing decisions include decisions to impose fees and costs. Johnson v. State,
27 N.E.3d 793, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). We review a trial court’s sentencing
decision for an abuse of discretion. McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 588 (Ind.
2007). An abuse of discretion has occurred when the sentencing decision is
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the
court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn
therefrom. Id. (quotations omitted). “If the fees imposed by the trial court fall
1
The order of probation listed the alcohol and drug services program fee for a Class A misdemeanor as $250
and for a Class B or C misdemeanor as $150. However, like many other categories on the order of probation,
the amount owed section is blacked out. Appellant’s App. p. 27.
2
This fee included twelve months of probation fees at $20 and a $50 administrative fee.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 4 of 9
within the parameters provided by statute, we will not find an abuse of
discretion.” Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d 798, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
I. Public Defender Fee
[10] Coleman argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a $50
supplemental public defender fee without statutory authorization. However, the
record does not support that the trial court even imposed this fee.
[11] At the time of the initial hearing, the trial court granted Coleman’s petition for
appointment of counsel which stated, “[n]o reimbursement required.”
Appellant’s App. p. 17. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated,
“[Coleman] had no fines and costs.” Tr. p. 34. The CCS also indicated that
Coleman was found indigent to fines and costs. Appellant’s App. p. 9. Further,
both the order of probation3 and the sentencing order do not reflect that
Coleman owed a supplemental public defender fee. Appellant’s App. pp. 10-11,
27. Even so, Coleman was charged with a $50 supplemental public defender fee
in his case transaction summary. Appellant’s App. 28. This appears to be an
error on the part of the probation department. Although Coleman argues that
the trial court erred in imposing a supplemental public defender fee, it did not
do so in its either its sentencing order or order of probation. See Appellant’s
3
Portions of the order of probation are blacked out, including the public defender fee among other fees that
Coleman was charged in his case transaction summary. Coleman’s signature also does not appear on the
order of probation. See Appellant’s App. p. 27.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 5 of 9
App. pp. 10-11, 27. Therefore, we conclude that the supplemental public
defender fee was not properly imposed on Coleman, and we vacate it.
II. Probation Fees
[12] Coleman further asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing
probation fees when it did not conduct an indigency hearing. When a defendant
is convicted of a misdemeanor, the trial court has discretion in imposing
probation fees:
In addition to any other conditions of probation, the court may
order each person convicted of a misdemeanor to pay:
(1) not more than a fifty dollar ($50) initial probation user’s fee;
(2) a monthly probation user’s fee of not less than ten dollars
($10) nor more than twenty dollars ($20) for each month that the
person remains on probation;
(3) the costs of the laboratory test or series of tests to detect and
confirm the presence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
antigen or antibodies to the human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) if such tests are required by the court under section 2.3 of
this chapter; and
(3) an administrative fee of fifty dollars ($50).
Ind. Code § 35-38-2-1(e) (emphasis added). Under Indiana Code section
35-38-2-1.7(b):
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 6 of 9
A probation department may petition a court to: (1) impose a
probation user’s fee on a person; or (2) increase a person’s
probation user’s fee; under section 1 or 1.5 of this chapter if the
financial ability of the person to pay a probation user’s fee
changes while the person is on probation.
[13] Further, the trial court must conduct an indigency hearing when it imposes
fines or costs as part of a defendant’s sentence. Johnson, 27 N.E.3d at 794-95; see
also Ind. Code § 33-37-2-3(a). However, no specific requirement indicates when
the hearing must be held as long as the hearing is held before the sentence is
completed. Johnson, 27 N.E.3d at 794-95.
[14] In its order of probation, the trial court did not designate the fees that later
appeared on Coleman’s case transaction summary.4 These monetary obligations
were listed as standard categories on the order of probation, but the ordered
amount sections were blacked out with the exception of the “fine,” “safe school
fee,” and “sexual assault fee.” Each of these categories appeared to have
ordered amounts of “0.” The fees in the case transaction summary were within
the trial court’s discretion to impose under Indiana Code section 35-38-2-1(e).5
Further, at the sentencing hearing, the trial court stated that Coleman had no
fines or costs but did not hold an indigency hearing. Tr. p. 34.
4
This does not include the supplemental public defender fee or the alcohol and drug services fee, as these fees
are addressed in previous and subsequent sections of this opinion.
5
We acknowledge that the probation department could have petitioned the trial court to impose these fees,
but the record contains no evidence of this.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 7 of 9
[15] Again, based on the record, we cannot conclude that the trial court imposed
these probation fees. Because the trial court stated at the sentencing hearing that
Coleman would be found indigent as to a fines and costs, and the order of
probation contained blacked out portions, we vacate Coleman’s probation fees
and remand to the trial court to hold an indigency hearing.6
III. Drug and Alcohol Treatment Fee
[16] Coleman asserts that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a $250
alcohol and drug services fee when he was convicted of a Class B misdemeanor.
The State concedes that this was an error. The order of probation lists the fee
for alcohol and drug services as $250 for a Class A misdemeanor and $150 for a
Class B or Class C misdemeanor. Because this was a fee listed on the order of
probation that we concluded was not imposed by the trial court, we vacate the
fee pending an indigency hearing. If the trial court determines after an
indigency hearing that Coleman is not indigent and able to pay the probation
fees, we instruct the trial court correct the order to reflect that Coleman owes
$150 for the alcohol and drug services fee to correspond with his Class B
misdemeanor conviction.
Conclusion
[17] Based on the record, we conclude that the trial court did not impose a
supplemental public defender fee or any of the other probation fees reflected on
6
We note that the indigency hearing does not have to be held until Coleman completes his probation
sentence. See Johnson, 27 N.E.3d at 794-95.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 8 of 9
Coleman’s case transaction summary. The imposition of these fees appears to
be an error by the probation department. We therefore vacate these fees and
remand to the trial court to hold an indigency hearing. Further, if the trial court
concludes that Coleman is not indigent, it should order Coleman to pay a $150
alcohol and drug services fee.
[18] Vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1511-CR-1999 | September 21, 2016 Page 9 of 9