Dorris Latrese Dooley v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: October 19, 2016
• Docket: 20A03-1603-CR-561
• Status: Published

Opinion

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