Emmett Reece Sandoval v. State of Indiana

FILED
Feb 24 2017, 10:06 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Jessica A. Wegg Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Jonathan C. Little Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Emmett Reece Sandoval, February 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
21A01-1609-CR-2027
v. Appeal from the Fayette Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Beth A. Butsch,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
21C01-1511-F5-910
Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 1 of 3
[1] On November 13, 2015, the State charged Sandoval with Level 5 felony sexual
misconduct with a minor. Bail was set at $20,000 cash or surety, with 10% to
the clerk. On December 19, 2015, Sandoval’s grandfather posted the $2,000
bond on Sandoval’s behalf. On May 27, 2016, Sandoval pleaded guilty as
charged. At the August 9, 2016, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced
Sandoval to four years imprisonment with two years suspended to probation.
The trial court also ordered that court costs in the amount of $183 and an initial
probation user fee in the amount of $50 be deducted from the bond, leaving a
balance of $1,717. The trial court ordered that the balance of the bond was to
be held in trust to be applied towards possible future appellate public defender
fees.1 Sandoval now appeals.
[2] The State asks that we find that Sandoval has invited any error and/or waived
this argument. We decline to resolve this appeal by way of invited error—
because we do not believe that the transcript clearly indicates that Sandoval
assented to this use of his bond—or by way of waiver—because a claim that a
trial court violated its statutory authority in imposing a sentence may be raised
for the first time on appeal. Edsall v. State, 983 N.E.2d 200, 208 (Ind. Ct. App.
2013).
[3] The State also argues that this appeal is moot because Sandoval has not
retained an appellate public defender to pursue this appeal. Initially, we note
1
Sandoval was represented by private counsel, not by a public defender, during the criminal proceedings
below.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 2 of 3
that the trial court was aware that Sandoval did not intend to use a public
defender on appeal but has still not released the bond money to Sandoval.
Reply Br. p. 7. Furthermore, we find that this issue is a matter of great
importance that is likely to recur, so we choose to address it. Horseman v. Keller,
841 N.E.2d 164, 170 (Ind. 2006).
[4] It has been expressly held by this Court in the past that a trial court may not
hold a portion of a criminal defendant’s bond money in trust to be used toward
public defender fees not yet incurred. Hendrix v. State, 615 N.E.2d 483, 485
(Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Indeed, the statutes governing the ways in which posted
bonds may be managed do not anticipate the occurrence of this practice. Ind.
Code §§ 35-33-8-3.2(a)(2), -7. It was error for the trial court to hold the balance
of Sandoval’s bond in trust for future potential public defender fees not yet
incurred.
[5] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to
the clerk of the Fayette County Court to return the balance of Sandoval’s bond
immediately.
Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 3 of 3