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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT