ILNews

Court upholds imposition of court costs

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a man’s pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence was not the proper channel to challenge the imposition of court costs following his murder trial.

Tim Godby was convicted of murdering Jeffery Asberry in New Castle in 1995 and sentenced to 60 years in prison for the murder. He was also ordered to pay court costs. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court on direct appeal and the COA denied Godby’s petition for post-conviction relief in 2004.

His 2012 pro se motion to correct erroneous sentence makes two claims: that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the finding of at least one aggravating circumstance, and that the court failed to fully comply with I.C. 35-38-3-2(b), which provides a list of items a sentencing judgment must include.

In Tim L. Godby v. State of Indiana, 33A01-1203-CR-128, the judges quickly dismissed his first claim because he should have addressed it on direct appeal or post-conviction relief. He may not do so now.

They found the trial court erred when imposing the court costs because it did not include in the judgment of conviction the amount of court costs, whether Godby was indigent, and the method of satisfying the court costs.

But court costs imposed in a criminal action are not part of the sentence, so his belated attempt to correct error through this motion is not proper. The Henry Circuit Court was correct in denying his motion to correct erroneous sentence, the judges ruled.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT