Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Dwain B. HORNER, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
[1] Dwain Horner pleaded guilty to three counts of Level 4 felony burglary. Both Horner and the State acknowledge the trial court improperly ordered Horner to pay restitution twice for the victim's same chiropractor visit. We reverse and remand for entry of a corrected restitution order.
Facts
[2] After convicting Horner on three counts of burglary, the trial court ordered him to pay $2,468.94 in restitution for medical services received by one of his victims, Cynthia Sigrist. Specifically, Horner was ordered to pay $394.47 to Sigrist and $2,074.47 to the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, both of which amounts included $394.47 for Sigrist's lone chiropractor visit. See Exhs. pp. 23-26.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Restitution orders are within the trial court's discretion and will only be reversed when no evidence or reasonable inferences support the trial court's decision. Archer v. State, 81 N.E.3d 212, 215-16 (Ind. 2017). Here, Horner asserts, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred by ordering Horner to pay $394.47 to both Sigrist and the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute for the same chiropractic treatment. We agree. See Little, 839 N.E.2d 807, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. (2010) (court held that the trial court erred when it ordered defendant to pay for duplicate medical charges in restitution). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reduce the restitution order by $394.47.
reversed and remanded
Weissmann, Judge.
Robb, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-2819
Decided: July 06, 2022
Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)