COVINGTON v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION ON REHEARING

[1] Curtis Covington, Jr. petitions for rehearing of the Court's original memorandum decision. We grant Covington's petition in two respects and affirm our original memorandum decision in all other respects.

[2] In paragraph [10] of our memorandum decision, we stated that “[t]he sentencing order issued in this case included all of the information required by Indiana Code section 35-38-3-2(b) that applied to Covington's case.” Covington v. State, 25A-CR-2031, at *6 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 23, 2026) (mem.). Covington correctly notes that the trial court's sentencing order did not contain any statement regarding his indigent status.

[3] Our memorandum decision remanded the matter to the trial court with instructions for the court to conduct an indigency hearing with regard to the trial court's imposition of costs, fines, and fees. After this hearing, we further instruct the trial court to either amend its sentencing order to state Covington's indigent status or enter a judgment of conviction in accordance with Indiana Code section 35-38-3-2. Additionally, we instruct the trial court to issue an abstract of judgment to satisfy the requirement for such as set forth in Indiana Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.2.

[4] Covington presents several other arguments in his petition for rehearing. We have reviewed them and conclude that they do not require reconsideration of our memorandum decision.

[5] For these reasons, we grant Covington's petition for rehearing and affirm our original memorandum decision, subject to the corrections discussed above.

[6] Rehearing granted.

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.