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.

APPELLANT PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

VINCENT THORNBURG GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Pendleton, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

CYNTHIA L. PLOUGHE

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

VINCENT THORNBURG, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 89A01-1307-CR-307

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE WAYNE CIRCUIT COURT

The Honorable David A. Kolger, Judge

Cause No. 89C01-1104-FC-22

December 26, 2013

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

BRADFORD, Judge
2

CASE SUMMARY

Appellant-Defendant Vincent Thornburg pled guilty to one count of Class D felony 

receiving stolen property and was sentenced pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement that 

he entered into with Appellee-Plaintiff State of Indiana. Thornburg appeals following the 

denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence in which he claimed that the trial court 

erroneously applied the proceeds of a $505.00 cash bond posted by Thornburg to the costs 

and fees which Thornburg agreed to pay pursuant to the terms of his plea agreement. 

Because we conclude that Thornburg has waived appellate review of the claimed error by 

failing to present this court with an adequate record on review, we affirm the judgment of the 

trial court. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about April 19, 2011, Thornburg was charged on one count of Class C felony 

burglary, one count of Class D felony theft, and one count of Class D felony receiving stolen 

property. A May 16, 2011 entry on the Chronological Case Summary (“CCS”) relating to the 

instant matter notes that “Additional cash bond in the amount of $505 posted by defendant ... 

on 04/07/2011 ... (bond transferred from Superior Court III as charges were not filed).” 

Appellee’s App. p. 5. On October 24, 2011, the parties filed a plea agreement with the trial 

court. This plea agreement was subsequently rejected by the trial court. 

On January 7, 2013, Thornburg, by counsel, filed an amended plea agreement. 

Pursuant to the terms of the amended plea agreement, Thornburg agreed to plead guilty to the 

charge of Class D felony receiving stolen property. In exchange for Thornburg’s plea, the 
3

State agreed to dismiss the remaining counts. The plea agreement provided that Thornburg 

“shall be sentenced to a period of incarceration of two (2) years, with no time suspended” and 

that Thornburg “shall pay court costs and any fee imposed by Indiana law as a result of [his] 

guilty plea.” Appellee’s App. p. 14. The plea agreement further provided that “[t]he parties 

hereto agree that in the event [Thornburg] posted a Personal Appearance Bond with Ten 

Percent Cash Deposit in this cause, or any cause that is being dismissed as part of this Plea 

Agreement, then that bond shall be applied ... toward fines, court costs, probation user’s 

fees, home detention fees, supplemental Public Defender fun payments, restitution, and any 

fees imposed by this agreement and/or Indiana law.” Appellee’s App. p. 15.

On February 21, 2013, the trial court accepted the plea agreement and sentenced 

Thornburg in accordance with its terms. In sentencing Thornburg, the trial court ordered 

“that the $505.00 cash bond posted in this cause be applied as follows: $50.00 administrative 

fee to be retained by the Clerk; $166.00 Court costs; $5.00 Special Death Benefit Fee; 

$284.00 to the Supplemental Public Defender Services Fund.” Appellant’s App. p. 18. 

On June 18, 2013, Thornburg filed a motion to correct an erroneous sentence. In this 

motion, Thornburg claimed that the trial court erroneously applied the $505.00 cash bond 

toward the costs and fees associated with the instant matter. The trial court denied 

Thornburg’s motion on June 25, 2013.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

On appeal, Thornburg contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to 

correct an allegedly erroneous sentence. In raising this contention, Thornburg argues that the 
4

trial court erroneously ordered that a $505.00 cash bond, which Thornburg claims was filed 

in an unrelated matter, be applied to the costs and fees which Thornburg agreed to pay 

pursuant to the terms of the amended plea agreement. It is well-established that “[i]t is a 

defendant’s duty to present an adequate record clearly showing the alleged error, and where 

he fails to do so, the issue is waived.” Davis v. State, 935 N.E.2d 1215, 1217 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2010) (citing Jackson v. State, 496 N.E.2d 32, 33 (Ind. 1986)); see also Hestand v. State, 491 

N.E.2d 976, 979 (Ind. 1986). 

Thornburg claims that he was arrested in connection with both misdemeanor and 

felony charges out of Superior Court III on April 5, 2011. Thornburg further claims that the 

actions pertaining to his arrest on alleged misdemeanor charges were different from those 

pertaining to his arrest for the underlying felony charges. Thornburg, however, presents no 

evidence supporting this self-serving claim and the record presented on appeal is silent as to 

when and why Thornburg was arrested. In fact, the record contains only one reference to the 

cash bond in question prior to the entry of the trial court’s order that the bond money be 

distributed to satisfy the costs and fees that Thornburg agreed to pay pursuant to the terms of 

the amended plea agreement. Again, a May 16, 2011 entry on the CCS which states that 

“Additional cash bond in the amount of $505 posted by defendant ... on 04/07/2011 ... (bond 

transferred from Superior Court III as charges were not filed).” Appellee’s App. p. 5. 

Further, the parties’ plea agreement seems to provide for the possibility that Thornburg 

posted a cash bond in relation to the instant matter but contains no evidentiary proof that this 

was actually the case. See Appellee’s App. p. 15. Accordingly we conclude that we are 
5

unable to determine whether the $505.00 bond was filed in relation to an unrelated criminal 

matter or the underlying criminal matter from the record presented on appeal. As such, we 

must conclude that Thornburg’s failure to present this court with an adequate record for 

review results in waiver of appellate review of the claimed error.1 See Jackson, 496 N.E.2d 

at 33; Hestand, 491 N.E.2d at 979; Davis, 935 N.E.2d at 1217.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

MATHIAS, J., and PYLE, J., concur.

 

1

 We note that Thornburg has requested permission to file an amended Appellant’s Brief in which he

seeks to add a claim that the trial court clerk acted outside its authority by allegedly transferring the $505.00

cash bond from what Thornburg claims was an unrelated criminal matter to the instant matter. However, 

Thornburg has also waived this additional claim on appeal by failing to present an adequate record on appeal. 

See Jackson, 496 N.E.2d at 33; Hestand, 491 N.E.2d at 979; Davis, 935 N.E.2d at 1217. Accordingly, we 

deny Thornburg’s motion in an order issued simultaneously with this memorandum decision.