James Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
This text of James Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (James Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Sep 26 2018, 8:23 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be CLERK regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Caryn N. Szyper Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
James Jones, September 26, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-41 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Stanley Kroh, Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G03-0002-CF-19525
Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-41 | September 26, 2018 Page 1 of 6 Case Summary and Issue [1] After James Jones violated the terms of his probation, the trial court revoked his
probation, and as part of his sanction, ordered him to pay certain probation-
related fees. Jones now appeals raising one issue for our review: whether the
trial court abused its discretion by imposing probation fees after revoking Jones’
probation before he began serving it. Concluding that the trial court abused its
discretion and probation fees should only be imposed in relation to probation
actually served, we reverse the imposition of probation fees and remand this
case to the trial court for a reassessment of total costs and fees owed.
Facts and Procedural History [2] Jones pleaded guilty to dealing in cocaine, a Class B felony, and admitted to
being an habitual offender. On July 17, 2002, he was sentenced to fifty years in
the Indiana Department of Correction with ten years suspended and 730 days
to be served on probation. In July 2015, Jones successfully petitioned the court
to modify his sentence. The trial court ordered Jones to serve the remaining
executed portion of his sentence in a community corrections program followed
by two years of probation. As part of its modified sentencing order, the trial
court assessed $793.00 in court costs and fees, including $460.00 in “Adult
Probation Monthly and Initial User Fees[.]” Appellant’s Appendix, Volume III
at 191.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-41 | September 26, 2018 Page 2 of 6 [3] In November 2016, Jones was arrested and charged with several felonies.
Marion County Community Corrections and the probation department filed
notices of violation, alleging Jones violated the terms of his placement and of
his probation due to this new case. The Notice of Probation Violation indicated
Jones’ probation was scheduled to begin on December 10, 2018, and he had not
paid any portion of his $793.00 monetary obligation. Jones was subsequently
convicted of a Level 4 felony. On December 12, 2017, the trial court revoked
Jones’ community corrections placement and his probation and ordered him to
serve ten years in the Department of Correction.1 On December 15, the trial
court issued an updated abstract and sentencing order, which still assessed
$793.00 in court costs and fees, including the $460.00 in probation fees. Jones
now appeals.
Discussion and Decision I. Standard of Review [4] A trial court’s authority to render sentencing decisions includes the decision to
impose fees and costs and a sentencing decision is reviewed for an abuse of
discretion. De La Cruz v. State, 80 N.E.3d 210, 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A
trial court abuses its discretion when a sentencing decision is “clearly against
1 The trial court has the authority to revoke a defendant’s probation “at any time[,]” including before a defendant begins to serve it. Champlain v. State, 717 N.E.2d 567, 571 (Ind. 1999); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2- 1(b)(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-41 | September 26, 2018 Page 3 of 6 the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the
reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Johnson v.
State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). The trial court does not abuse
its discretion if it imposes fees within the statutory parameters. Id.
II. Probation Fees [5] Before proceeding to Jones’ argument, we address the State’s contention that
Jones waived his right to challenge the probation fees. The State argues Jones
had ample opportunity to object to the trial court’s imposition of probation fees
and because of his failure to object, he has waived his right to challenge the fees
on appeal. Specifically, the State contends that Jones did not object in 2015
when the court ordered him to pay probation fees as part of his modified
sentence, in 2016 when Jones became aware of his outstanding balance and
failed to pay, or in December 2017 at the hearings regarding the revocation of
his probation and community corrections placement. Although Jones did not
raise the issue to the trial court at those times, there was no basis for him to
object as his probation had not yet been revoked and, in 2017 when Jones’
probation was revoked, the trial court did not mention probation fees at the
hearing. The probation fees were included in the updated sentencing order
entered after the hearing. Based on case law, Jones could have properly
assumed the trial court would not assess any probation fees in the updated
order because his probation had been revoked before he began serving it.
Therefore, Jones did not waive his right to challenge the probation fees on
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-41 | September 26, 2018 Page 4 of 6 appeal because he had no reason or opportunity to do so before the trial court
assessed the fees.
[6] Turning to Jones’ argument, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by
imposing probation fees on him when his sentence does not include probation.
He argues he “never began serving probation in this case, and probation is not
part of his sentence now[,]” and asks this court to vacate the probation fees
contained in the sentencing order. Brief of Appellant at 7. Jones relies on our
holding in Johnson to support his argument. 27 N.E.3d at 793.
[7] In Johnson, the trial court ordered the defendant to pay twelve months of
probation fees but after the defendant served just five months of probation, the
trial court revoked his probation due to a violation. The defendant appealed the
trial court’s order that he pay the entire twelve months of probation fees. This
court held that “probation fees should reflect the time a defendant actually
served on probation” and because “the $340 in probation fees reflected a
twelve-month probation and [defendant] served only five of those months, the
trial court should recalculate [defendant’s] probation fees, if appropriate, to
correspond with the probation time [defendant] actually served.” Id. at 794-95
(citing Ind.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
James Jones v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-jones-v-state-of-indiana-mem-dec-indctapp-2018.