Paul O. Haynes v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 18, 2020
• Docket: 19A-CR-2781
• 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 May 18 2020, 10:25 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Darren Bedwell Benjamin J. Shoptaw Marion County Public Defender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Paul O. Haynes, May 18, 2020 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-CR-2781 v. Appeal from the Marion Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, Appellee-Plaintiff Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G02-1810-F5-35898

May, Judge.

[1] Paul O. Haynes appeals the trial court’s order requiring him to pay probation

fees after the trial court revoked his probation. He argues the trial court abused

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2781 | May 18, 2020 Page 1 of 4 its discretion when it charged him probation fees, because his probationary

period had not commenced at the time the trial court entered its order. We

reverse and remand.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 26, 2019, Haynes pled guilty to Level 5 felony domestic battery. 1

The court imposed a four-year sentence with two years executed in a

community corrections program and two years suspended. The court also

ordered Haynes to serve one year on probation following completion of the

executed portion of his sentence. In August 2019, the court found Haynes had

violated the terms of his community corrections program. The court continued

Haynes on community corrections, but it modified his placement to a work

release center.

[3] On September 19, 2019, Leanna Williams-Sutton, the interim supervisor of

Duvall Residential Center, witnessed Haynes drop a tissue into a waste basket.

She retrieved the tissue from the trash can. Inside the tissue, she found “a green

leafy substance that . . . resembled K2 spice.” (Tr. Vol. II at 17.) The State

subsequently filed a notice of community corrections violation and a notice of

probation violation because Duvall Residential Center prohibited its residents

from possessing any controlled substances, synthetic drugs, or lookalike

1 Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3 (2016).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2781 | May 18, 2020 Page 2 of 4 substances. Haynes was also arrested for Class A misdemeanor possession of a

controlled substance. 2 The court held an evidentiary hearing on October 24,

2019. Following the hearing, the court revoked Haynes’ community

corrections placement and his probation, and it imposed a three-year executed

sentence. The court also ordered Haynes to pay $600.00 in probation-related

fees.

Discussion and Decision [4] The imposition of fees and costs is part of a trial court’s sentencing decision.

Coleman v. State, 61 N.E.3d 390, 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). We review

sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. Id. “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.

[5] Haynes contends the trial court should not have assessed any probation fees

against him because he did not serve any time on probation. The State agrees

that the trial court improperly imposed the probation fees. Therefore, we hold

the trial court abused its discretion in ordering Haynes to pay probation fees

even though the court revoked Haynes’ probation before it began. See Johnson v.

State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 795 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (holding trial court was required

2 Ind. Code § 35-48-4-7.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2781 | May 18, 2020 Page 3 of 4 to recalculate the probation fees assessed against the defendant in order to

correspond to the time he actually served on probation); see also Fleming v. State,

-- N.E.3d. ---, 2020 WL 1146751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (holding trial court

abused its discretion when it imposed probation-related fees even though the

trial court revoked the defendant’s probation before it began).

Conclusion [6] The trial court abused its discretion in ordering Haynes to pay probation fees

when Haynes did not serve any time on probation. We reverse and remand

with instructions for the trial court to vacate its imposition of probation-related

[7] Reversed and remanded.

Robb, J., and Vaidik, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2781 | May 18, 2020 Page 4 of 4