Bryant L. White v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any May 05 2017, 7:04 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
APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bryant L. White Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Carlisle, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Jesse R. Drum
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Bryant L. White, May 5, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
53A01-1701-CR-186
v. Appeal from the Monroe Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Marc R. Kellams,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
53C02-1106-FD-485
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1701-CR-186 | May 5, 2017 Page 1 of 3
[1] On June 1, 2011, the State charged Bryant White with dealing in marijuana and
maintaining a common nuisance. At the time of his arrest, officers from the
Bloomington Police Department seized $1815 in cash that was in White’s
possession. On July 23, 2013, the Child Support Enforcement Agency filed an
Income Withholding Order (IWO) in two cases under which White owed child
support: a divorce case and a paternity case. In the divorce case, 1 the IWO
directed the Bloomington Police Department to withhold $315 for White’s past
due child support. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 27-30. In the paternity case,2 the
IWO directed the Bloomington Police Department to withhold $1,500 for
White’s past due child support. Id. at 31-34. White did not challenge the
issuance of the IWOs under either the divorce case or the paternity case. The
Bloomington Police Department transmitted White’s cash pursuant to the
IWOs.
[2] On January 5, 2015, the State dismissed the criminal charges against White.
On December 27, 2016, White filed a motion in the criminal case for the return
of his seized cash. The State objected, noting that the seized cash had been
applied to White’s outstanding child support obligations pursuant to the IWOs
in the divorce and paternity cases. The trial court denied White’s motion, and
White now appeals.
1
Cause number 53C06-0901-DR-52.
2
Cause number 53C07-0101-JP-17.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1701-CR-186 | May 5, 2017 Page 2 of 3
[3] The IWOs were issued in July 2013 under the divorce and paternity cases.
Over three years later, when White sought the return of his seized currency in
the criminal case, the money had long since been applied to his outstanding
child support obligation. Had he desired to challenge the IWOs, he should
have filed timely challenges under the divorce and paternity cases—the cases in
which the orders were actually issued. The criminal case was not the proper
case in which to challenge the IWOs, and by the time White sought the return
of his property, it was no longer in the possession of the Bloomington Police
Department (and had not been for over three years). Under these
circumstances, the trial court did not err by denying White’s motion.
[4] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Barnes, J., and Crone, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A01-1701-CR-186 | May 5, 2017 Page 3 of 3