Sammie L. Binion v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Nov 30 2016, 8:22 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Peter D. Todd Elkhart, Indiana Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Matthew B. Mackenzie Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Sammie L. Binion, November 30, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A04-1604-CR-918 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. Appeal from the Elkhart Superior Court The Honorable Gretchen S. Lund, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 20D04-1406-FD-682 Najam, Judge. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 1 of 3 Statement of the Case [1] Sammie Binion appeals his sentence following his conviction for theft, as a Class D felony. Binion presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it imposed a fee for collecting a DNA sample from him. We affirm. Facts and Procedural History [2] On March 2, 2016, Binion pleaded guilty to theft, as a Class D felony. On March 30, the trial court sentenced Binion to 545 days executed in the Indiana Department of Correction. In its sentencing statement, the trial court ordered Binion “to submit to a DNA sample at his own expense.” Tr. at 23. This appeal ensued. Discussion and Decision [3] Binion acknowledges that, under Indiana Code Section 10-13-6-10 (2016), he is required to provide a DNA sample. Binion also acknowledges that, under Indiana Code Section 33-37-5-26.2, he was required to pay a $2 fee for the collection of that DNA sample. But Binion contends that the trial court imposed an additional fee for the collection of the DNA sample for “an indeterminate amount of money[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 5. And Binion maintains that “[n]othing in the code authorizes the court to impose” that alleged additional fee. Id. [4] Binion does not direct us to anything in the record showing that he was required to pay more than $2 for the DNA sample collection. The only Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 2 of 3 reference to a DNA collection fee in the record is the trial court’s statement at sentencing that Binion was “to submit to a DNA sample at his own expense.” Tr. at 23. As the State points out, there is no evidence to suggest that, with that statement, the trial court meant anything other than the statutory $2 collection fee. Accordingly, Binion has not shown any error. [5] Affirmed. Bailey, J, and May, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A04-1604-CR-918 | November 30, 2016 Page 3 of 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
