MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 19 2016, 6:42 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Peter D. Todd Gregory F. Zoeller
Elkhart, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Caryn N. Szyper
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Dorris Latrese Dooley, October 19, 2016
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A03-1603-CR-561
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Evan S. Roberts,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
20D01-1001-FC-5
Altice, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1603-CR-561 | October 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4
[1] As a result of violations of her community corrections commitment, the trial
court ordered Doris Dooley to serve the remainder of her suspended six-year
sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction (the DOC). The court also
ordered her to pay a $250 fine, which had been previously suspended. On
appeal, Dooley challenges the imposition of the fine. Specifically, she argues
that the trial court was required to hold an indigency hearing and upon a
finding of indigence, expressly state in its order that Dooley could not be
incarcerated for failing to pay the fine.
Facts & Procedural History
[2] In June 2012, Dooley pled guilty to class C felony battery. The trial court
sentenced her to six years in the DOC, all suspended to probation. The court
also imposed a $250 fine, which it suspended, and costs and fees. Dooley
violated probation within about a year. In October 2014, the trial court revoked
Dooley’s probation and ordered her to serve the balance of her sentence on
work release through the Elkhart Community Corrections (ECC). Dooley
subsequently violated the conditions of her ECC commitment on a number of
occasions and was terminated from ECC. Following an evidentiary hearing in
February 2016, the trial court determined that Dooley had violated the terms of
placement. In addition to ordering Dooley to serve the remainder of her
sentence in the DOC, the court ordered her to pay the previously suspended
$250 fine and entered judgment in favor of ECC for $1957 plus post-judgment
interest. On appeal, Dooley challenges only the imposition of the $250 fine.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1603-CR-561 | October 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4
Discussion & Decision
[3] Dooley’s appellate argument is brief. She argues that, pursuant to Ind. Code §
33-19-2-3(a), the trial court was required to hold a hearing to determine her
ability to pay the fine. Additionally, she contends that the trial court should
have informed her that she cannot be incarcerated for an inability to pay.
[4] We are perplexed by her argument because I.C. § 33-19-2-3(a) was repealed in
2004 and dealt with costs, not fines. Further, our Supreme Court has clearly
held that sentencing orders are not required to contain an express statement
prohibiting imprisonment for nonpayment of fines or costs. Whedon v. State,
765 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002).
[5] It is well established that although trial courts have the authority to assess fines
or costs against an indigent defendant, such a person may not be imprisoned for
failure to pay the fines or costs. See id. “Moreover, a defendant’s financial
resources are more appropriately determined not at the time of initial
sentencing but at the conclusion of incarceration, thus allowing consideration of
whether the defendant may have accumulated assets through inheritance or
otherwise.” Id.
[6] In this case, because the trial court’s order does not indicate when the fine shall
be paid, we will consider it stayed until Dooley’s release from prison. Thus,
while the trial court has a duty to conduct an indigency hearing upon Dooley’s
release under Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18, Dooley has wholly failed to establish an
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1603-CR-561 | October 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4
abuse of discretion. See Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794-95 (Ind. Ct. App.
2015).
[7] We affirm.
[8] Bradford, J. and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1603-CR-561 | October 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4