Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KATHY BRADLEY Appellate Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ELLEN H. MEILAENDER Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
WILLIAM MANN, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A04-0612-CR-722

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Patrick Murphy, Master Commissioner Cause No. 49G14-0507-FD-116869

August 3, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

FRIEDLANDER, Judge

William Mann appeals the $200 drug interdiction fee assessed as part of his sentence following his guilty plea to class D felony Possession of Cocaine. 1 He presents the following restated issue for review: Did the trial court's assessment of the minimum amount of the mandatory drug interdiction fee, 2 which was an explicit term of the plea agreement, without holding an indigency hearing violate constitutional prohibitions on excessive fines? We affirm. On July 11, 2005, the State charged Mann with class D felony possession of cocaine and class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia. Thereafter, on July 5, 2006, he entered into a plea agreement with the State under which he agreed to plead guilty to possession of cocaine. In exchange, the State dismissed the paraphernalia charge and agreed to a sentence of 180 days served on home detention, which would be transferred to another county. The agreement also provided for a $200 drug interdiction fee, as well as fines and costs to be determined by the court. That same day, the trial

1

Ind. Code Ann.

Download William Mann v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law