6 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Banks v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050, 1052 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, the trial court found Banks indigent and ordered him to pay $200 in public defender fees. 2010If the person is not indigent, the court shall order the person to pay: (1) the entire amount of the costs at the time sentence is pronounced; (2) the entire amount of the costs at some later date; or (3) specified parts of the costs at designated levels. * * * * * * (e) If, after a hearing under subsection (a) or (b), the court determines that a convicted person is able to pay part of the costs of representation, the court shall order the person to pay an amount of not more than the cost of the defense services rendered on behalf of the person. *1255 In Banks v. State, 847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind.Ct | 1 | 2 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance Company v. Waste Management Of Wisconsin, Inc.green1 sentence2020Co. v. Waste Management of Wisconsin, Inc., 777 F.2d 366, 368-69 (7th Cir. 1985) (applying Wisconsin law, reservation of rights created a conflict of interest where plaintiffs charged Waste Management with contaminating groundwater through negligent or intentional acts, and that the equitable solution was to allow insured to select counsel “subject to the approval and at the expense of” the insurer). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Section 33-37-2-3 requires a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent, and if "the court determines that a convicted person is able to pay part of the costs of representation, the court shall order the person to pay an amount of not more than the cost of the defense services rendered on behalf of the person.” Section 33-37-2-3 is inapplicable because it applies only to defendants found "not indigent." See Hall v. State, 826 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Mathis, 776 N.E.2d at 1288 (discussing former Sections 33-9-1.5-6 and 33-19-2-3), traits, denied. [6] 6. | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Section 33-37-2-3 requires a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent, and if "the court determines that a convicted person is able to pay part of the costs of representation, the court shall order the person to pay an amount of not more than the cost of the defense services rendered on behalf of the person.” Section 33-37-2-3 is inapplicable because it applies only to defendants found "not indigent." See Hall v. State, 826 N.E.2d 99, 105 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); Mathis, 776 N.E.2d at 1288 (discussing former Sections 33-9-1.5-6 and 33-19-2-3), traits, denied. [6] 6. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. State
green
1 sentence2019The clerk shall deposit the amount paid by a convicted person under this subsection in the county's supplemental public defender services fund established under IC 33-40-3-1. (f) A person ordered to pay part of the cost of representation under subsection (e) has the same rights and protections as those of other judgment debtors under the Constitution of the State of Indiana and Indiana law. [9] "[D]ecisions to impose restitution, fines, costs, or fees, are generally left to the trial court's discretion." Berry , 950 N.E.2d at 799 (quoting Kimbrough v. State , 911 N.E.2d 621 , 636 (Ind. Ct. App | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kimbrough v. State
green
1 sentence2019The clerk shall deposit the amount paid by a convicted person under this subsection in the county's supplemental public defender services fund established under IC 33-40-3-1. (f) A person ordered to pay part of the cost of representation under subsection (e) has the same rights and protections as those of other judgment debtors under the Constitution of the State of Indiana and Indiana law. [9] "[D]ecisions to impose restitution, fines, costs, or fees, are generally left to the trial court's discretion." Berry , 950 N.E.2d at 799 (quoting Kimbrough v. State , 911 N.E.2d 621 , 636 (Ind. Ct. App | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Owens v. State
green
2 sentences2014Accordingly, contingent upon the trial court conducting a hearing when the fees are due and making a specific finding of Eliseo’s ability to pay, I find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of public defender fees in the amount of $300 and court costs in the amount of $166. 7 See Owens v. State, 947 N.E.2d 482 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (noting issue of indigency not ripe for appellate review before defendant was required to pay), tram, denied. . 2014Accordingly, contingent upon the trial court conducting a hearing when the fees are due and making a specific finding of Eliseo’s ability to pay, I find no abuse of discretion in its imposition of public defender fees in the amount of $300 and court costs in the amount of $166.7 See Owens v. State, 947 N.E.2d 482 , (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (noting issue of indigency not ripe for appellate review before defendant was required to pay), trans. denied. 7 Although Eliseo unsuccessfully challenges the trial court’s failure to specify the statutory basis for imposing a $300 public defender fee, he raises | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.