Sammie L. Binion v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Nov 30 2016, 8:22 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

Matthew B. Mackenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sammie L. Binion, November 30, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A04-1604-CR-918 v. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Gretchen S. Lund, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20D04-1406-FD-682

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 1 of 3 Statement of the Case [1] Sammie Binion appeals his sentence following his conviction for theft, as a

Class D felony. Binion presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether

the trial court erred when it imposed a fee for collecting a DNA sample from

him. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 2, 2016, Binion pleaded guilty to theft, as a Class D felony. On

March 30, the trial court sentenced Binion to 545 days executed in the Indiana

Department of Correction. In its sentencing statement, the trial court ordered

Binion “to submit to a DNA sample at his own expense.” Tr. at 23. This

appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [3] Binion acknowledges that, under Indiana Code Section 10-13-6-10 (2016), he is

required to provide a DNA sample. Binion also acknowledges that, under

Indiana Code Section 33-37-5-26.2, he was required to pay a $2 fee for the

collection of that DNA sample. But Binion contends that the trial court

imposed an additional fee for the collection of the DNA sample for “an

indeterminate amount of money[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 5. And Binion

maintains that “[n]othing in the code authorizes the court to impose” that

alleged additional fee. Id.

[4] Binion does not direct us to anything in the record showing that he was

required to pay more than $2 for the DNA sample collection. The only Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 3 reference to a DNA collection fee in the record is the trial court’s statement at

sentencing that Binion was “to submit to a DNA sample at his own expense.”

Tr. at 23. As the State points out, there is no evidence to suggest that, with that

statement, the trial court meant anything other than the statutory $2 collection

fee. Accordingly, Binion has not shown any error.

[5] Affirmed.

Bailey, J, and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 3