MEMORANDUM DECISION
Foley, Judge.
[1] Jeffery Shaun Cloud (“Cloud”) was convicted of child molesting
1
as a Level 1 felony and was sentenced to forty years at the Indiana Department of Correction and ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000 with an additional $189 in court costs and $100 in public defender fees. Cloud appeals only the imposition of the $1,000 fine. He argues—and the State concedes—that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to hold an indigency hearing before imposing the fine. Because we find that the trial court failed to conduct the required indigency hearing prior to the imposition of the fine, costs, and fees we remand this case to the trial court for an indigency hearing and a determination as to Clouds ability to pay the imposed fine, costs, and fees.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On May 18, 2023, Cloud was charged with five counts of Level 1 felony child molesting after his ten-year-old victim disclosed the sexual abuse to her mother. That same day, the trial court entered an order on initial hearing wherein it stated that Cloud was “indigent and entitled to counsel at no expense.” Appellants Vol II pp. 34–35. On October 31, 2023, Cloud pleaded guilty to one count of Level 1 felony child molesting, and the State dismissed the remaining charges and agreed to a sentencing cap of forty years. According to the presentence investigation report, Cloud had not been employed in the past five years and was behind on his child support payments. When asked about his finances, Cloud responded, “I get by [the] best I can with no money.” Id. at 59. The trial court sentenced Cloud to forty years in the Indiana Department of Correction and imposed a fine of $1,000 plus $189 in court costs and $100 in public defender fees. The trial court held no indigency hearing before imposing the fine, court costs and fees. The trial court informed Cloud that he “cannot be in prison for failure to pay [his] fines and costs due to [his] status as an indigent person.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 50. The court further stated, “But, I want to make an impact on you that if for some reason you ever luck into $1,000.00, you dont need it.” Id at 50. The judgment of conviction stated: “The defendant, being indigent, shall not be imprisoned for failure to pay fine[s] or costs, but they will be entered of record in the judgment docket.” Appellants Vol. II p. 68. Cloud appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[3] Cloud argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it imposed the $1,000 fine without holding an indigency hearing. The State concedes error with respect to the imposition of the fine. “[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007)., clarified on rehg, 875 N.E.2d 218 (Ind. 2007). Moreover, “[s]entencing decisions include the imposition of fines, costs, and fees[.]” Meunier-Short v. State, 52 N.E.3d 927, 930 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). The trial court abuses its sentencing discretion “if the decision is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom.” Anglemyer, 868 N.E.2d at 490 (quoting K.S. v. State. 849 N.E.2d 538, 544 (Ind. 2006)). If a court imposes a fine as part of a sentence, “ ‘it shall conduct an [indigency] 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.’ ” Spells v. State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 775 (Ind. 2024). (quoting Ind. Cod § 35-38-1-18(a)). “When costs are imposed, too, the court ‘shall conduct a hearing’ into the persons indigency and order the cost paid only ‘[i]f the person is not indigent.’ ” Id. (quoting I.C. § 33-37-2-3(a)). Under Indiana Code section 33-37-2-5, “costs” include the fees prescribed by Indiana Code section 33-37-4-1, which are subject to an indigency hearing. Id. To determine indigency, the court shall consider a persons assets, income, and necessary expenses. I.C. § 35-33-7-6.5. Where the record reflects that the trial court did not consider such factors, remand is appropriate so the trial court can make the required indigency determination. Spells, 225 N.E.3d at 780.
[4] Here, the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the $1,000 fine—with an additional $189 in court costs and $100 in public defender fees
2
—without first determining Clouds ability to pay the fine, costs, and fees. Because the record does not reflect that the trial court sufficiently inquired into Clouds assets, income, and necessary expenses in order to determine his ability to pay any fines, fee, or costs, remand is appropriate so the trial court can make the required indigency determination. See Spells, 225 N.E.3d at 780 (holding that remand is necessary if a trial court fails to conduct an indigency hearing before imposing cost or fines on a defendant). We, therefore, remand the case to the trial court to hold an indigency hearing and make a determination of Clouds ability to pay the imposed fines, costs, and fees.
3
[5] Remanded.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).
2
. As of July 1, 2024, the supplemental public defender fee for a felony action is $200. See Ind. Code § 35-33-7-6(c), we also note that an indigent defendant may be ordered to pay the supplemental public defender fee if the court determines the defendant is able to pay part of the costs of representation, Spells v, State, 225 N.E.3d 767, 773 (Ind. 2024).
3
. Although Cloud asserts only that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the fine, pursuant to caselaw from the Indiana Supreme Court, it was also improper to impose fees and costs without first holding an indigency hearing. See id at 780.
Memorandum Decision by Judge Foley
Judges Vaidik and Weissmann concur.
Vaidik, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.