Dominique Mitchell v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION 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. FILED Apr 23 2019, 10:45 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Daniel Hageman Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Caroline G. Templeton Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Dominique Mitchell, April 23, 2019 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-2429 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Peggy Hart, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 49G10-1805-CM-17114 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] In September 2018, Dominique Mitchell was convicted of three misdemeanors—carrying a handgun without a license, driving while Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2429 | April 23, 2019 Page 1 of 2 suspended, and possession of marijuana—and sentenced to 120 days on home detention through Marion County Community Corrections. The trial court ordered Mitchell to pay a home-detention fee but did not specify the amount of the fee. In November 2018, Marion County Community Corrections filed a discharge summary indicating that Mitchell had successfully completed his sentence, that he had “paid $150 towards [his] fees,” and that he is “currently $422 in arrears to Marion County Community Corrections.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 51. Apparently Marion County Community Corrections had itself determined that Mitchell’s home-detention fee would be $572. [2] Mitchell now appeals, arguing that it is the responsibility of the trial court to set an offender’s home-detention fee and asking us to remand this matter to the trial court for that purpose. Indiana Code section 35-38-2.5-6(7) provides that an order for home detention must include, among other things, “[a] requirement that the offender pay a home detention fee set by the court[.]” (Emphasis added.) The State agrees that, in light of this statute, remand is appropriate. We agree with the parties and remand this matter to the trial court so that it can set the amount of the home-detention fee. [3] Remanded. Kirsch, J., and Altice, J., concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2429 | April 23, 2019 Page 2 of 2
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.
