HARRIS v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After Tiffany Harris was found guilty of multiple charges related to operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the trial court sentenced her to 365 days in the Morgan County Jail and imposed a fine, costs, and fees. Harris contends that the trial court erred in imposing the fine, costs, and fees as part of its sentencing order. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Following a bench trial on May 7, 2025, Harris was found guilty of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to at least 0.08 or more, and Class C misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated, all of which were merged by the trial court. Harris was also found guilty of Class C infraction driving left of center.

[3] At the sentencing hearing on June 16, 2025, Harris gave an allocution statement regarding some of her financial circumstances, including the following:

I would like to ask for either community service, a fine, or six months conditional release. I lost my job. I can no longer go back to that. I can no longer go back to that, but to take the only job that I have to provide for myself, my family, would be harsh on myself, my family, and I would not be able to pay Court fees, or fines, let alone bills, which will leave me with no transportation to even get to work. I am new to Indiana, and I have no family here. If you grant me something reasonable so I can support myself and family, that would be much appreciated. If not, I do not know how I'm going to support myself, family, with no income.

Tr. Vol. II pp. 157–58. Harris later testified, “if I take time off, that means I won't be able to pay my bills.” Tr. Vol. II p. 161. She also testified regarding her student loans and her difficulty in finding employment as a result of this case and with paying her bills.

[4] The trial court sentenced Harris to 365 days in the Morgan County Jail, with 361 days suspended to probation. The trial court additionally imposed (1) a $1.00 fine, (2) court costs totaling $189.50, and (3) an alcohol/drug countermeasure fee of $200.00. In the order of probation, the trial court ordered Harris to complete the ADAPT program and pay the associated $225.00 fee and other fees related to probation.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Harris contends that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering her to pay the fine, court costs, alcohol/countermeasure fee, and ADAPT program fee without first conducting an indigency hearing.¹ The State argues that the indigency hearing requirement was effectively satisfied because Harris presented some testimony regarding her employment circumstances, difficulties paying bills, and student loans. The State further contends that any error in the imposition of the fine was harmless and that Harris has waived her challenge to the remaining costs for failing to object below.

[6] An abuse-of-discretion standard of review applies to a trial court's sentencing decisions and to the imposition of costs and fees. Holder v. State, 119 N.E.3d 621, 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). This standard allows reversal only when a decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court has misinterpreted the law.” Abbott v. State, 183 N.E.3d 1074, 1083 (Ind. 2022) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Spells v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 771 (Ind. 2024).

[7] [I]mposition 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.” [Ind. Code] § 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.” [Ind. Code] § 33-37-2-3(a).

Id. at 775.

[8] In determining whether a person is indigent, Indiana Code § 35-33-7-6.5(a) requires a trial court to consider the person's assets, income, and necessary expenses. See Spells, 225 N.E.3d at 778. “[I]t is incumbent on trial courts to consider these factors. This means that if the parties fail to provide the information, courts themselves must make inquiries calculated to bring out the necessary evidence.” Id.

[9] In Spells, the Court ultimately found the indigency hearing requirement unsatisfied where the record revealed that

[t]he trial court first questioned Spells about her means at a pretrial hearing in December 2021. At that time, Spells was working thirty to forty hours a week in daycare, earning $800 gross biweekly, living with her sister, and had no children. We note that the court did not inquire further into Spells's necessary expenses or request dollar amounts for them. The court nonetheless appointed counsel, implicitly finding Spells indigent, and imposed the $100 supplemental public-defender fee.

The trial court next heard evidence of Spells's circumstances at the sentencing hearing in July 2022. Responding to questions from defense counsel, Spells explained that she was employed in full-time elder care. However, she was now living alone and expecting a child for whom she would be the primary financial provider. It was apparent that Spells's circumstances had changed since the pretrial hearing. Yet, no further evidence of her assets, income, or necessary expenses emerged at sentencing.

Id. at 779.

[10] The record here provides even less about Harris's finances, with little to no evidence of Harris's assets, income, or necessary expenses, other than her testimony that she owes between $90,000.00 and $100,000.00 in student loans. Moreover, the trial court did not question Harris about the necessary information before imposing the fine, costs, and fees. In light of the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Spells, we conclude that the record is insufficient to satisfy the indigency hearing requirement. We therefore reverse the trial court's order imposing the challenged fines, costs, and fees and remand with instructions to conduct an indigency hearing to determine Harris's ability to pay those fines, costs, and fees.

[11] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part and reversed in part and we remand with for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum decision.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Harris moved to release the $600.00 cash bond she had posted to pay the ordered $50.00 administration fee and $50.00 initial probation user's fee to the Morgan County Probation Department, which motion was granted. Because she moved to apply her cash bond to those specific probation fees, Harris does not challenge them on appeal, and we affirm those fees.

Bradford, Judge.

Weissmann, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.