TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Like v. State

Tina R. LIKE, Appellant-Defendant v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

Like v. State, 766 N.E.2d 416 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Court of Appeals · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 16, 2002
Docket
No. 68A01-0105-CR-179
Judges
Brook, Deny, Mathias, Riley
Citations
766 N.E.2d 4162002 Ind. App. LEXIS 5922002 WL 555062

Opinion of the Court — Brook

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

OPINION ON REHEARING BROOK, Chief Judge.

We consider the State's petition for rehearing in which it argues that we erred in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a $125.00 criminal costs fee under Indiana Code Section 33-19-5-1(a). See Like v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1188, 1193 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). Indiana Code Section 33-19-5-1(a) provides that "flor each action that results in a felony conviction under IC 85-50-2 . the clerk shall collect from the defendant a criminal costs fee of one hundred twenty dollars ($120)." (Emphasis added.) In our opinion, we noted that Like was con-viected of a Class B felony under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-2(a), not under Indiana Code 35-50-2, and vacated the portion of the trial court's order imposing a $125.00 criminal costs fee. See Like, 760 N.E.2d at 1193 .

The State acknowledges that a defendant cannot be convicted of a felony under Indiana Code 35-50-2, which governs felony sentencing provisions, but contends that the "spirit of the statute" requires a trial court to impose the fee when a defendant has been convicted of a felony. We agree with the State's contention but nevertheless conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a fee in excess of the statutory limit of $120.00. We therefore grant the State's petition for rehearing and remand with instructions to *417 impose a criminal costs fee in the amount of $120.00.

Petition for rehearing granted and remanded with instructions.

MATHIAS, J., concurs. RILEY, J., would deny rehearing.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

2002: 22003: 22006: 12010: 12012: 12017: 120022026peak 2002 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mathis v. State776 N.E.2d 1283 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
  2. Banks v. State847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. Goffinet v. State775 N.E.2d 1227 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)
  4. Jones v. State938 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
  5. McRoy v. State794 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
  6. Taylor v. State786 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

Most recent

  1. Edward M. Tate, Jr. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)No. 49A05-1602-CR-369 (Ind. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2017)
  2. Brandon Price v. State of IndianaNo. 49A04-1203-CR-154 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2012)
  3. Jones v. State938 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010)
  4. Banks v. State847 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)
  5. McRoy v. State794 N.E.2d 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)
  6. Taylor v. State786 N.E.2d 285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Like v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list