Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 (2026)
Repealed
✓ current as of May 2026
As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.3. Amended by P.L.182-1984, SEC.2; P.L.98-1988, SEC.5; P.L.123-1988, SEC.29; P.L.53-1989, SEC.8; P.L.184-1989, SEC.26; P.L.49-1989, SEC.20; P.L.67-1990, SEC.11; P.L.1-1990, SEC.349. Repealed by P.L.1-1991, SEC.197.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Cynthia Bell v. State of Indiana, 59 N.E.3d 959 (Ind. 2016).
Cynthia Bell v. State of Indiana, 59 N.E.3d 959 (Ind. 2016). “Rather, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3(a)(6), clearly provides that if the ability to pay is considered, restitution can be ordered as a condition of probation.”
Prewitt v. State, 878 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. 2007). “For example, Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3 explicitly provides trial courts with many combinable options for fashioning appropriate conditions of proba-tions for defendants.”
Anthony Scott Bratcher v. State of Indiana, 999 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “, Ind. Code §§ 35-38-2-2 .2; 35-38-2-2.4. Bratcher, however, does not challenge the statutes underlying the probation conditions.”
Adam Anthony Howe v. State of Indiana, 25 N.E.3d 210 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “The State also observes that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 12A02-1405-CR-320 | January 30, 2015 Page 5 of 17 Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3 provides authority for criminal courts to protect victims of crimes by ordering as a condition of probation that the person refrain from…”
Matter of Oliver, 493 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. 1986). “Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 (Burns 1985 Repl.).”
Miller v. State, 502 N.E.2d 92 (Ind. 1986). “Finally, Defendant and the State agree that the trial court failed to determine Defendant's ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered, pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 (a)(5). This statute authorizes the court to order restitution or reparation to the victim for damage…”
Justine Archer v. State of Indiana, 81 N.E.3d 212 (Ind. 2017). “Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3(a)(6). Whether a trial court needs to inquire into a defendant’s ability to pay depends on whether restitution is ordered as a condition of probation or is ordered as part of an executed sentence.”
Hevner v. State, 919 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 2010). “1984)); see also Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .8(a)(14) (providing that the court may impose any term of probation "reasonably related to the person's rehabilitation.”
Green v. State, 811 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “She maintains Ind.Code § 35-38-2-2[ 4 ] allows the court to order restitution only for crimes to which a defendant either pleads guilty or is found guilty by trial.”
Atkins v. State, 546 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “CODE § 35-38-2-2(b). The intent of IND.CODE § 35-38-2-2(b) is to provide a defendant with prospective notice of the standard of conduct required of him or her while on probation and to prohibit the imposition of additional conditions after sentencing.”
State v. Meeks, 415 P.3d 400 (Kan. 2018). “§ 17-14-10 (a) ; Idaho Code § 19-5304 (7) ; Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3(a)(6) (when ordered as a condition of probation); *405 Me.”
Jerry Baker v. State of Indiana, 70 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “See Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2 .3(a)(6) (“[w]hen restitution or reparation is a condition of probation, the court shall fix the amount, which may not exceed an amount the person can or will be able to pay, and shall fix the manner of performance”).”
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2(a)(15) — 1 case
Barton v. State, 598 N.E.2d 623 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2(a)(3) — 1 case
Burton v. State, 547 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2(a)(5) — 5 cases
Hipskind v. State, 519 N.E.2d 572 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
Batarseh v. State, 622 N.E.2d 192 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993).
Rumple v. State, 529 N.E.2d 861 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).
Miller v. State, 648 N.E.2d 1208 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995).
Winter v. State, 587 N.E.2d 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2(b) — 4 cases
Atkins v. State, 546 N.E.2d 863 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989). “CODE § 35-38-2-2(b). The intent of IND.CODE § 35-38-2-2(b) is to provide a defendant with prospective notice of the standard of conduct required of him or her while on probation and to prohibit the imposition of additional conditions after sentencing.”
Packer v. State, 777 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Clark v. State, 580 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Kody Russell Oliver v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) (Ind. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ind. Code § 35-38-2-2(c) — 1 case
Shaffer v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
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.