NORMAN v. STATE (2024)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Bradley Norman appeals the Franklin Circuit Court's imposition of a fine and court costs following his conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting. Norman presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it imposed a fine and court costs without first holding an indigency hearing.

[2] We reverse and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] On March 16, 2023, the State charged Norman with two counts of child molesting, one as a Level 1 felony and one as a Level 4 felony. In February 2024, Norman pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony child molesting, and the State dismissed the Level 1 felony charge. The trial court accepted Norman's guilty plea and held a sentencing hearing. At that hearing, the court sentenced Norman to ten years in the Department of Correction with two years suspended to probation. The court also imposed a fine of $250 and court costs of $189. The trial court did not first determine Norman's ability to pay either the fine or the court costs. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Norman contends that the trial court erred when it imposed a fine and court costs without first determining his ability to pay. The State agrees.¹ As our Supreme Court recently explained,

the imposition of a fine usually requires an indigency hearing. By statute, “whenever the court imposes a fine, it shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent” and it may order the payment of a fine only “[i]f the person is not indigent.” I.C. § 35-38-1-18(a) (2007). When costs are imposed, too, the court “shall conduct a hearing” into the person's indigency and order the costs paid only “[i]f the person is not indigent.” I.C. § 33-37-2-3(a).

Spells v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 775 (Ind. 2024).

[5] Here, the trial court did not assess Norman's ability to pay the fine or court costs. Accordingly, we vacate the fine and costs and remand with instructions for the trial court to hold an indigency hearing.

[6] Reversed and remanded with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State points out that, while Norman did not raise these issues to the trial court, our Supreme Court has held that a defendant does not waive the issue of indigency with respect to fines because they are a “part of the sentence.” Spells v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 771 n.5 (Ind. 2024). And the State concedes that, “if the trial court determines Norman was indigent as to the fine, the imposed costs would be unenforceable.” Appellee's Br. at 6 n.1.

Mathias, Judge.

Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.