Sec. 18. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b),
whenever the court imposes a fine, it shall conduct a hearing to
determine whether the convicted person is indigent. If the person is not
indigent, the court shall order:
(1) that the person pay the entire amount at the time sentence is
pronounced;
(2) that the person pay the entire amount at some later date;
(3) that the person pay specified parts at designated intervals; or
(4) at the request of the person, commitment of the person to the
county jail for a period of time set by the court in lieu of a fine. If
the court orders a person committed to jail under this subdivision,
the person's total confinement for the crime that resulted in the
conviction must not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment
prescribed for the crime under IC 35-50-2 or IC 35-50-3.
(b) A court may impose a fine and suspend payment of all or part of
the fine until the convicted person has completed all or part of the
sentence. If the court suspends payment of the fine, the court shall
conduct a hearing at the time the fine is due to determine whether the
convicted person is indigent. If the convicted person is not indigent, the
court shall order the convicted person to pay the fine:
(1) at the time the fine is due; or
(2) in a manner set forth in subsection (a)(2) through (a)(4).
(c) If a court suspends payment of a fine under subsection (b), the
court retains jurisdiction over the convicted person until the convicted
person has paid the entire amount of the fine.
(d) Upon any default in the payment of the fine:
(1) an attorney representing the county may bring an action on a
debt for the unpaid amount;
(2) the court may direct that the person, if the person is not
indigent, be committed to the county jail and credited toward
payment at the rate of twenty dollars ($20) for each twenty-four
(24) hour period the person is confined, until the amount paid
plus the amount credited equals the entire amount due; or
(3) the court may institute contempt proceedings or order the
convicted person's wages, salary, and other income garnished in
accordance with IC 24-4.5-5-105 to enforce the court's order for
payment of the fine.
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.204-1986,
SEC.2; P.L.305-1987, SEC.35; P.L.137-1989, SEC.11; P.L.156-2007,
SEC.4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
36
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
Ratliff v. State, 741 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
Ratliff v. State, 741 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 14× “He argues that his sentence is erroneous for several reasons: 1) the trial court erred in failing to find aggravating circumstances specifically to support consecutive sentences; 2) the aggregate sentence of seven years exceeds the allowable sentence pursuant to Indiana Code…”
Amanda Vaughn v. State of Indiana, 982 N.E.2d 1071 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 10× “2d at 1279 (noting that the legislature requires indigency hearing both as to the imposition of fines, Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, and costs, Indiana Code Section 33-19-2-3 (the predecessor to Indiana Code Section 33-37-2-3)).”
Everroad v. State, 730 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “2d 301, 307 (1979), this court first recognized that Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18 4 places an affirmative 'duty on a trial court to conduct an indigency hearing 'when imposing a fine as part of a defendant’s sentence.”
Jason A. Henderson v. State of Indiana, 44 N.E.3d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 8× “[Í9] Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18 provides that whenever it imposes a fine, the trial court “shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent.”
Aaron A. Negash v. State of Indiana, 113 N.E.3d 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “§ 33-37-2-3 (providing that a court *1294 must conduct an indigency hearing when imposing costs); I.C. § 35-38-1-18 (providing that a court must conduct an indigency hearing when imposing a fine).”
Mason W. Meunier-Short v. State of Indiana, 52 N.E.3d 927 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “(Emphasis added); accord Ind.Code § 35-38-1-18 (fines). Had the trial court conducted a hearing and determined Meunier-Short was not indigent, the trial court could have ordered Meunier-Short to pay the fines, costs, and fees at the .”
McRoy v. State, 798 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 9× “In its petition for rehearing, the State argues that this Court ignored Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, which authorizes a trial court to order payment of a fine for a non-indigent defendant "at some later date.”
Wooden v. State, 757 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “2000), another panel of this court examined the case law interpreting Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18(a) and reiterated that the statute "imposes an affirmative duty on a trial court to hold an indigeney hearing when imposing a fine on a defendant.”
Ridley v. State, 690 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1997).
· cites it 2× “1987) for the proposition that when a court imposes fines or costs pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-18(a) on an indigent defendant, the court must expressly state that the defendant shall not be imprisoned for failing to pay.”
Merlington v. State, 839 N.E.2d 260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “He therefore has not yet served the maximum term of imprisonment for his Class A felony Accordingly, I.C. § 35-38-1-18 could be utilized in Merling-ton's case.”
Pointer v. State, 499 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind. 1986).
· cites it 2× “There was overwhelming evidence other than the presentence reports that Appellant committed two prior unrelated felonies.”
Zuranski v. Anderson, 582 F. Supp. 101 (N.D. Ind. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Indiana Code § 35-38-1-18 provides in perti-.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18(a) — 12 cases
Ratliff v. State, 741 N.E.2d 424 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“He argues that his sentence is erroneous for several reasons: 1) the trial court erred in failing to find aggravating circumstances specifically to support consecutive sentences; 2) the aggregate sentence of seven years exceeds the allowable sentence pursuant to Indiana Code…”
Everroad v. State, 730 N.E.2d 222 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
“2d 301, 307 (1979), this court first recognized that Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18 4 places an affirmative 'duty on a trial court to conduct an indigency hearing 'when imposing a fine as part of a defendant’s sentence.”
Wooden v. State, 757 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“2000), another panel of this court examined the case law interpreting Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18(a) and reiterated that the statute "imposes an affirmative duty on a trial court to hold an indigeney hearing when imposing a fine on a defendant.”
Ridley v. State, 690 N.E.2d 177 (Ind. 1997).
“1987) for the proposition that when a court imposes fines or costs pursuant to Indiana Code § 35-38-1-18(a) on an indigent defendant, the court must expressly state that the defendant shall not be imprisoned for failing to pay.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18(a)(2) — 1 case
McRoy v. State, 798 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“In its petition for rehearing, the State argues that this Court ignored Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, which authorizes a trial court to order payment of a fine for a non-indigent defendant "at some later date.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18(a)(d) — 1 case
McRoy v. State, 798 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“In its petition for rehearing, the State argues that this Court ignored Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, which authorizes a trial court to order payment of a fine for a non-indigent defendant "at some later date.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18(b) — 5 cases
McRoy v. State, 798 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“In its petition for rehearing, the State argues that this Court ignored Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, which authorizes a trial court to order payment of a fine for a non-indigent defendant "at some later date.”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-1-18(b)(1) — 2 cases
McRoy v. State, 798 N.E.2d 521 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
“In its petition for rehearing, the State argues that this Court ignored Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18, which authorizes a trial court to order payment of a fine for a non-indigent defendant "at some later date.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.