Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 1 of 3

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Jessica A. Wegg

Jonathan C. Little

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

George P. Sherman

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Emmett Reece Sandoval,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

February 24, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

21A01-1609-CR-2027

Appeal from the Fayette Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Beth A. Butsch, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

21C01-1511-F5-910

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 2 of 3

[1] On November 13, 2015, the State charged Sandoval with Level 5 felony sexual 

misconduct with a minor. Bail was set at $20,000 cash or surety, with 10% to 

the clerk. On December 19, 2015, Sandoval’s grandfather posted the $2,000 

bond on Sandoval’s behalf. On May 27, 2016, Sandoval pleaded guilty as 

charged. At the August 9, 2016, sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced 

Sandoval to four years imprisonment with two years suspended to probation. 

The trial court also ordered that court costs in the amount of $183 and an initial 

probation user fee in the amount of $50 be deducted from the bond, leaving a 

balance of $1,717. The trial court ordered that the balance of the bond was to 

be held in trust to be applied towards possible future appellate public defender 

fees.1 Sandoval now appeals.

[2] The State asks that we find that Sandoval has invited any error and/or waived 

this argument. We decline to resolve this appeal by way of invited error—

because we do not believe that the transcript clearly indicates that Sandoval 

assented to this use of his bond—or by way of waiver—because a claim that a 

trial court violated its statutory authority in imposing a sentence may be raised 

for the first time on appeal. Edsall v. State, 983 N.E.2d 200, 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2013).

[3] The State also argues that this appeal is moot because Sandoval has not 

retained an appellate public defender to pursue this appeal. Initially, we note 

 

1

Sandoval was represented by private counsel, not by a public defender, during the criminal proceedings 

below.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 21A01-1609-CR-2027 | February 24, 2017 Page 3 of 3

that the trial court was aware that Sandoval did not intend to use a public 

defender on appeal but has still not released the bond money to Sandoval. 

Reply Br. p. 7. Furthermore, we find that this issue is a matter of great 

importance that is likely to recur, so we choose to address it. Horseman v. Keller, 

841 N.E.2d 164, 170 (Ind. 2006).

[4] It has been expressly held by this Court in the past that a trial court may not 

hold a portion of a criminal defendant’s bond money in trust to be used toward 

public defender fees not yet incurred. Hendrix v. State, 615 N.E.2d 483, 485 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1993). Indeed, the statutes governing the ways in which posted 

bonds may be managed do not anticipate the occurrence of this practice. Ind. 

Code §§ 35-33-8-3.2(a)(2), -7. It was error for the trial court to hold the balance 

of Sandoval’s bond in trust for future potential public defender fees not yet 

incurred. 

[5] The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with instructions to 

the clerk of the Fayette County Court to return the balance of Sandoval’s bond 

immediately.

Mathias, J., and Pyle, J., concur.