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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT