ILNews

Man waited too long to ask for return of cash bond

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the trial court was not statutorily authorized to retain a man’s cash bond in 2005, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of his motion to release the bond because he waived his argument.

Thomas Dillman was charged with three drunken-driving offenses and paid a $700 cash bond to be released from jail in September 2005. He pleaded guilty to one count two months later, and the trial court said Dillman would pay costs and fees out of the cash bond. Dillman never appealed that order. Then, in 2011, the trial court released the remainder of the cash bond for probation fees. Dillman also did not appeal this order.

In April 2013, he filed a motion to release the bond, which the trial court denied the same day.

The state conceded that the trial court did not have statutory authority to retain the bond to pay for court costs, but it argued that Dillman waived his claim when he failed to appeal the court’s orders. Dillman countered that the orders constituted an illegal sentence, which is a fundamental error he can raise at any time.

The Court of Appeals found Dillman should have filed a motion to correct error or notice of appeal within 30 days of the November 2005 order. He waited nearly eight years to dispute the release of his bond for court costs.

Dillman can’t bypass the waiver issue by arguing fundamental error because the error did not constitute an illegal sentence nor was it a fundamental error, Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote in Thomas D. Dillman v. State of Indiana, 53A05-1306-CR-274.  

“Although the trial court made its statement regarding costs and fees at sentencing, the trial court’s order requiring Dillman to pay his costs and fees was not part of his sentence. In 2005, when Dillman was sentenced, INDIANA CODE§ 33-37-2-2(a) provided: “[c]osts in a criminal action are not a part of the sentence and may not be suspended.” In turn, “fees” . . . “are costs.” I.C. § 33-37-2-5 (2005). Therefore, the trial court’s order regarding Dillman’s costs and fees was not a part of his sentence, and his sentence was not illegal,” he wrote.

“Although the trial court should not have retained Dillman’s cash bond, it released the money to pay for Dillman’s costs and fees, which Dillman was required to pay regardless.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT