Lawrence Amick v. State of Indiana , 126 N.E.3d 909 ( 2019 )

FILED
Jun 07 2019, 8:50 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Talisha Griffin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General of Indiana
Appellate Division Caryn N. Szyper
Indianapolis, Indiana Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Lawrence Amick, June 7, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-27
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth Christ,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49G24-1607-F6-27107
Brown, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 1 of 6
[1] Lawrence Amick appeals his sentence for forgery and auto theft as level 6
felonies. He raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial
court abused its discretion in entering community corrections fees based on a
sliding scale. We remand.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] In July 2016, the State charged Amick with forgery and auto theft as level 6
felonies. On October 23, 2018, the court held a jury trial, and the jury found
him guilty as charged. On December 12, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held
and Amick was sentenced to 730 days in community corrections for each count
to be served concurrently. Amick’s counsel then questioned him regarding his
employment, income, and children. The following exchange then occurred:
[Defense Counsel]: Alright. Judge, I would ask the court to find
him indigent in regards to any additional fines, fees, and cost,
eligible for a sliding scale for home detention. I’m assuming that
the Thinking for a Change classes can be offered through
Community Corrections?
THE COURT: Yes.
[Defense Counsel]: Okay. So, I – I don’t know if there’s a way
that they can discount that or put that on a sliding fee scale, but if
they could, we request that.
THE COURT: The Court will not impose a fine. I am imposing
court cost in the amount of hundred and eighty-five dollars
($185.00). I’m imposing a one hundred dollar ($100.00) Public
Defender recoupment fee. I’m going to order the cash bond
refund applied to court cost, PD recoupment fee, and then two
hundred and ten dollars ($210.00) held for Marion County
Community Corrections fees that you’ll be incurring. I’m
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 2 of 6
ordering Community Corrections to evaluate you for sliding
scale fees for the cost of your home detention, and I have
appointed pauper counsel for the purpose of appeal.
Transcript Volume II at 178.
[3] The sentencing order lists concurrent sentences of 730 days for each count with
zero days suspended. Under “Sentencing Conditions,” it lists “Community
Corrections” under “Condition” and “sliding scale for fees” under
“Amount/Comment.” Appellant’s Appendix Volume II at 12 (capitalization
omitted). It lists “Home Detention” and an effective date of December 12,
2018. (12) It also lists certain “Court Costs and Fees” and the corresponding
amounts which totaled $285. Id. at 13. An order titled “Order of Commitment
to Community Corrections (Sentencing location CCC)” states that Amick was
sentenced to 730 days executed in Community Corrections and states “sliding
scale for fees” for community corrections with an effective date of December
12, 2018. Id. at 165.
[4] On December 13, 2018, the Marion County Community Corrections
(“MCCC”) filed a memo stating that a bond was posted with the Marion
County Clerk’s Office on behalf of Amick in the underlying cause and that he
owed monetary obligations to MCCC in the amount of $3,680. It also
requested that the bond amount filed with the Clerk’s Office be transferred to it
to apply toward the outstanding balance of program costs associated with the
services provided to Amick. On December 20, 2018, the court approved the
MCCC’s request and entered a “Bond Refund Order,” which states in part:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 3 of 6
The defendant in the above-mentioned cause number had a bond
posted under receipt number 2016-80366-CCB. There is a refund
accessible in the amount of $495. The CLERK of the Court is
hereby directed to apply bond money to the following:
1. $185.00 to Court Costs
2. $100.00 to PD Fee
3. $210.00 to Community Corrections
Id. at 172.
Discussion
[5] The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering the
community corrections fees based on a sliding scale. Sentencing decisions
include decisions to impose fees and costs. Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794
(Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard. McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 588 (Ind. 2007).
“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.
(quoting K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). “If the fees imposed by
the trial court fall within the parameters provided by statute, we will not find an
abuse of discretion.” Berry v. State, 950 N.E.2d 798, 799 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
[6] Amick argues that the court abused its discretion when it ordered MCCC to
evaluate him for sliding scale fees for the cost of home detention and asserts
that the court holds the discretion to impose fees. The State argues that Amick
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 4 of 6
invited any error when he specifically requested the court to impose home
detention fees on a sliding scale. It states that, “[w]hile the scale is not included
in the record, it appears to have been a fee schedule known to the court and the
parties, and thus, [MCCC] merely implemented the trial court’s order by
applying its scale to Amick’s financial circumstances.” Appellee’s Brief at 9. It
acknowledges that, “because the sliding fee scale is not in the appellate record,
it is unknown on appeal what the trial court was referring to and how it is
administered,” and asserts that “[t]o the extent that this Court deems that
information necessary to Amick’s appeal, this Court should remand to the trial
court to give it an opportunity to clarify its intent regarding the home detention
fees.” Id. at 12. In reply, Amick asserts that no error was invited and that he is
arguing that the court abused its discretion when it granted MCCC authority to
determine what the sliding scale would be without first petitioning the court
and receiving approval for the estimated costs.
[7] Rules governing the direct placement in a community corrections program are
governed by Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6 et seq. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775,
777 (Ind. 2015). Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-4.5 provides that, if a court places a
person on home detention as part of a community corrections program, the
placement must comply with all applicable provisions in Ind. Code §§ 35-38-
2.5. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.5-6(7) provides that an order for home detention must
include “[a] requirement that the offender pay a home detention fee set by the
court . . . .” (Emphasis added).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 5 of 6
[8] The record does not include the “sliding scale” or state who established it or
who administers it. We have no way of knowing whether the trial court
intended to delegate any statutory responsibility to MCCC or whether the fees
requested by MCCC and entered by the trial court were consistent with the
sliding scale. Accordingly, we remand the matter to provide the trial court an
opportunity to clarify its intent regarding the fee and for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
Conclusion
[9] For the foregoing reasons, we remand.
[10] Remanded.
May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CR-27 | June 7, 2019 Page 6 of 6