Michael Stickles v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 15, 2017
• Docket: 49A05-1703-CR-506
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Nov 15 2017, 9:19 am

court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK Indiana Supreme Court the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals and Tax Court estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael Stickles, November 15, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A05-1703-CR-506 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior State of Indiana, Court

Appellee-Plaintiff. The Honorable Angela Dow Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16-1611-F6-45066

Mathias, Judge.

[1] Michael Stickles (“Stickles”) appeals from the trial court’s order approving a

probation department memorandum concerning the assessment of probation

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 1 of 4 fees. However, because the trial court has subsequently found Stickles indigent

to all probation fees, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

Facts and Procedural History [2] After a bench trial on February 9, 2017, Stickles was found guilty of Class A

misdemeanor domestic battery. At the sentencing hearing immediately

following the trial, Stickles was sentenced to 305 days of non-reporting

probation. During the hearing, the following exchange took place:

[Court]: I hope that you are successful. I’ll do no fines, no court costs. You’ve got enough issues.

[Counsel]: Would the Court be willing to fin[d] Mr. Stickles indigent of the costs of probation?

[Court]: Yes.

Tr. p. 57.

[3] Eight days later, the probation department sent the trial court a memorandum

containing the following relevant information:

Appellant’s App. p. 38. Four days after receiving the memorandum, the trial

court issued a signed order that indicated:

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 2 of 4 Id. at 39.

[4] On June 14, 2017, the CCS specified that the trial court amended Stickles’s

sentence by waiving a previously imposed $50 domestic violence prevention

fee. On the same day, the trial court also found Stickles “Indigent as to Fines

and Costs,” and specifically indicated “probation fees.” Stickles now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] Stickles’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court abused its discretion

when it authorized the probation department to impose fees after Stickles was

found indigent to all fees during sentencing.

[6] We initially note that the record does not reveal whether the probation

department fees outlined in the memorandum and approved by the trial court

were ever actually imposed. Stickles points out, “The record does not reflect

that probation followed through and imposed the $250 user’s fee.” Appellant’s

Br. at 7.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 3 of 4 [7] Further, although not cited by either party,1 the trial court made a specific

finding on June 14 that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees. Therefore,

because the fees were never imposed, and the trial court has since made an

explicit finding that Stickles is indigent to all probation fees, Stickles has

received the relief he sought, and as such, his appeal is dismissed as moot. Jones

v. State, 847 N.E.2d 190, 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied.

Vaidik, C.J., and Crone, J., concur.

1 Indiana Evidence Rule 201(b)(5), as amended effective January 1, 2010, “permits courts to take judicial notice of ‘records of a court of this state[.]’” Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154, 1160 (Ind. 2016). Court records are presumptively sources of facts “that cannot reasonably be questioned” “in the absence of evidence tending to rebut that presumption.” Id. at 1161.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1703-CR-506 | November 15, 2017 Page 4 of 4