Brandon Artis, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In 2016, Brandon Artis was arrested, and the Evansville Police Department seized cash from Artis. In 2024, Artis filed a pro se motion for return of property, which the trial court granted; the trial court ordered the Evansville Police Department to return $590 to Artis. The money, however, was not returned. Artis filed a motion for rule to show cause, seeking to hold the State in contempt for failing to comply with the trial court's order, and Artis requested a hearing. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Artis appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion. We agree, and accordingly, reverse and remand for the trial court to issue a rule to show cause and conduct a hearing on Artis’ motion.

Issue

[2] Artis raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Artis’ motion for rule to show cause without holding a hearing.

Facts

[3] On April 6, 2016, Artis was arrested in Vanderburgh County and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, a Level 4 felony. During the arrest, the Evansville Police Department seized cash from Artis. A jury later found Artis guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced Artis to six years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

[4] On August 1, 2024, Artis filed a pro se motion for return of property pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-33-5-5, seeking the return of $590 ¹ in cash seized during his arrest. On September 3, 2024, the State notified the trial court that it took “no position” on Artis’ motion. App. Vol. II pp. 11, 19. That same day, the trial court granted the motion and ordered the Evansville Police Department to release $590 in cash to Artis.

[5] The State did not return the money. On December 26, 2024, Artis filed a motion for clarification, seeking a timeline for the release and return of his property. The trial court denied the motion that same day. On August 11, 2025, Artis filed a motion for rule to show cause, seeking to hold the State in contempt for failing to comply with the trial court's September 3, 2024 order, and Artis requested a hearing.² That same day, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Artis now appeals and argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for rule to show cause.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Artis filed a motion for rule to show cause pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5, requesting that the trial court hold the State in contempt and conduct a hearing after the State failed to return his $590 seized during his arrest. We review a trial court's contempt determination for an abuse of discretion. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829, 832 (Ind. 2016).

[7] The return of property following the final disposition of a criminal cause is governed by Indiana Code Section 35-33-5-5, which provides in relevant part: “Following the final disposition of the cause at trial level or any other final disposition, [p]roperty which may be lawfully possessed shall be returned to its rightful owner, if known.” (emphasis added). “When the word ‘shall’ appears in a statute, it is construed as mandatory rather than directory unless it appears clear from the context or the purpose of the statute that the legislature intended a different meaning.” United Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Indiana & Mich. Elec. Co., 549 N.E.2d 1019, 1022 (Ind. 1990). Thus, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, the statute mandates the State's obligation to return seized property, which may be lawfully possessed, to the “rightful owner” once the case is finally disposed. I.C. § 35-33-5-5.

[8] In Sinn v. State, this Court held that, once a defendant obtained an order directing the return of seized property, the defendant could not appeal from an order in his favor; rather, his remedy when the order was not followed was to file a motion for rule to show cause. 693 N.E.2d 78, 81 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). This Court has also explained that “[t]he State ․ cannot take a person's property, not use the property in a prosecution, and then refuse to return the property because doing so is burdensome.” Warren v. State, 120 N.E.3d 285, 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).

[9] Here, the facts are undisputed that the Evansville Police Department seized cash from Artis during his arrest, his case has reached final disposition, and the trial court ordered the State to return $590 to Artis. Despite the Evansville Police Department's failure to return the money, the trial court denied Artis’ motion for rule to show cause and denied his request for a hearing.

[10] On appeal, the State argues that “[Artis] appears not to have done anything to obtain the return of his property” and that “nothing in the record indicates that he has contacted the police department or that the State has refused any requests for the return [of] his money.” Appellee's Br. p. 7. The State further asserts that Artis did not “provide[ ] the State with information necessary to receive his property,” implying that they lack the proper logistics to return the money. Id. We are not persuaded by these strained arguments.³

[11] Artis pursued the remedy set forth in Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5, which provides that, before a person may be held in indirect contempt for disobeying a court order, the person is entitled “to be served with a rule of the court against which the contempt was alleged to have been committed.” Thus, the party seeking enforcement of a court order must initiate indirect contempt proceedings by filing a motion for rule to show cause. Once the motion is filed, a rule to show cause should be issued pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-47-3-5. The rule to show cause must “specify a time and place at which the defendant is required to show cause, in the court, why the defendant should not be attached and punished for such contempt.” I.C. § 34-47-3-5(b)(3). “An alleged contemnor is entitled to adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, which includes a rule to show cause that includes enough information about ‘the nature and circumstances of the charge’ and offers a chance to show cause why contempt ‘should not be attached’ and the contemnor not be punished for the disdainful actions.” Finnegan v. State, 240 N.E.3d 1265, 1271 (Ind. 2024) (quoting I.C. § 34-47-3-5(b)(2)-(3)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

[12] Here, the trial court summarily denied Artis’ motion for rule to show cause, leaving the parties no opportunity to clarify their positions, including any explanation by the State for its failure to comply with the trial court's prior order. We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying Artis’ motion for rule to show cause. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to issue a rule to show cause and hold a hearing on this matter.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court abused its discretion by denying Artis’ motion for rule to show cause without a hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to issue a rule to show cause and hold a hearing on Artis’ motion.

[14] Reversed and remanded.

FOOTNOTES

1.   There is a discrepancy regarding the amount of cash the Evansville Police Department seized from Artis. In the investigation report, the seized amount is listed as $640, which matches the amount Artis claims on appeal. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 37; Appellant's Br. p. 7. In his initial motion for return of property, however, Artis sought $590, and the trial court granted that amount in its order. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 14, 19. Because Artis does not specifically challenge the amount granted in the September 2024 order, we use $590 in this opinion.

2.   Artis submitted the motion to prison staff for mailing in January 2025, but the motion was not mailed and was returned to him. Artis resubmitted the motion, and the trial court received it on August 11, 2025.

3.   Once the trial court issued an order directing the State to return the seized property, the burden was on the State to comply and to take reasonable steps to facilitate that return. In Lewis v. Putnam County Sheriff's Department, this Court addressed which party should bear the burden after the sheriff's department seized a defendant's money but prematurely transferred it to the federal government. 125 N.E.3d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). We held that “we do not believe that it is fair to require Lewis to undertake the process of retrieving his money from the federal government.” Id. The Court reversed and remanded “with instructions that the State reimburse Lewis instanter.” Id.

Tavitas, Chief Judge.

Bailey, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.