Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1509-CR-1373 | March 31, 2016 Page 1 of 5

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Peter D. Todd

Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

J.T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jack L. Fisher,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A03-1509-CR-1373

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable Teresa L. Cataldo, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D03-1402-FA-6

Baker, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1509-CR-1373 | March 31, 2016 Page 2 of 5

[1] Jack Fisher was found driving a vehicle that contained a methamphetamine lab. 

A State Police Clandestine Lab Team had to clean up the lab, and incurred 

costs in doing so. After Fisher pleaded guilty, the trial court ordered him to pay 

restitution to the lab team in the amount of those costs.

[2] Fisher appeals the restitution order imposed by the trial court after Fisher 

pleaded guilty to Attempted Dealing in Methamphetamine,1 a class B felony. 

Fisher argues that the restitution order was improper because there was no 

victim to whom restitution should be paid. Finding that the trial court was 

statutorily required to order restitution in this case, we affirm.

Facts

[3] On February 11, 2014, Fisher was driving a vehicle and was pulled over by a 

police officer. The vehicle contained a number of precursors used in the 

manufacture of methamphetamine as well as methamphetamine itself. The 

Indiana State Police Clandestine Lab Team was called to clean up the mobile 

methamphetamine lab; the amount of costs the team incurred in the cleanup 

totaled $1,432.49.

[4] On February 18, 2014, the State charged Fisher with class A felony dealing in 

methamphetamine. On June 19, 2015, Fisher pleaded guilty to class B felony 

attempted dealing in methamphetamine pursuant to a plea agreement.2 As part 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1; Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1.

2 The State dismissed the class A felony charge in exchange for the guilty plea.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1509-CR-1373 | March 31, 2016 Page 3 of 5

of the plea agreement, Fisher waived any appellate argument related to whether 

the sentence imposed by the trial court was erroneous or inappropriate pursuant 

to Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B). Appellant’s App. p. 75. On June 23, 2015, the 

trial court sentenced Fisher to twelve years imprisonment, with four years 

executed, two years in alternate placement, and six years suspended to 

probation. The trial court also ordered Fisher to pay restitution to the 

Clandestine Lab Team in the amount of $1,432.49. Fisher now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[5] Fisher’s sole argument on appeal is that the restitution order was erroneous. 

We review a trial court’s order of restitution for an abuse of discretion, and will 

affirm if sufficient evidence exists to support its decision. Rich v. State, 890 

N.E.2d 44, 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

[6] The parties dispute whether Fisher has waived this appeal by entering into the 

plea agreement. We decline to resolve this case on grounds of waiver.

[7] Initially, we note that restitution was not mentioned in the plea agreement or at 

the guilty plea hearing. Under these circumstances, the general rule is that the 

trial court may not order restitution. See Edsall v. State, 983 N.E.2d 200, 208-09 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). In this case, however, there is a specific statute 

mandating trial court action:

(a) In addition to any other penalty imposed for conviction of 

an offense under this chapter involving the manufacture or 

intent to manufacture methamphetamine, a court shall

order restitution under IC 35-50-5-3 to cover the costs, if 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1509-CR-1373 | March 31, 2016 Page 4 of 5

necessary, of an environmental cleanup incurred by a law 

enforcement agency or other person as a result of the 

offense.

(b) The amount collected under subsection (a) shall be used to 

reimburse the law enforcement agency that assumed the 

costs associated with the environmental cleanup described 

in subsection (a).

Ind. Code § 35-48-4-17 (emphasis added).

[8] We acknowledge an apparent conflict between the case law, which provides

that restitution may not be ordered unless it is included in the plea agreement,

and the statute, which requires the trial court to order restitution in 

methamphetamine cleanup cases. It is well established that plea agreements are 

contractual in nature. E.g., Lee v. State, 816 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind. 2004). It is also 

well established that a contract must be construed as having been made in 

contemplation of applicable law. E.g., Mouch v. Ind. Rolling Mill Co., 93 Ind. 

App. 540, 151 N.E. 137, 138-29 (1926) (holding that statutes that exist at the 

time a contract is made must be read into the contract unless expressly excluded 

by the contractual language). In this case, Fisher’s plea agreement was entered 

into in 2015, more than a decade after the 2003 enactment of Indiana Code 

section 35-48-4-17. Under these circumstances, we find that the plea agreement 

implicitly incorporated the statutory restitution requirement. See Lee, 816 

N.E.2d at 38 (holding that “precisely because plea agreements are contracts, the 

principles of contract law can provide guidance in the consideration of the 

agreement”). Therefore, the trial court did not err by ordering restitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A03-1509-CR-1373 | March 31, 2016 Page 5 of 5

[9] Finally, Fisher’s argument focuses on whether or not there is a victim to whom 

restitution is owed. 3 This Court has already addressed this precise issue. In 

Bulthuis v. State, the defendant appealed the trial court’s order of restitution 

following the cleanup of a methamphetamine lab. 17 N.E.3d 378 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2014), trans. denied. Among other things, Bulthuis contended that the 

State was not a “victim” for the purpose of restitution. We disagreed, observing 

that the restitution award was “not only permitted, but required by the relevant 

statute[.]” Id. at 389 (emphasis added).4 Therefore, we found that the trial 

court did not abuse its discretion by ordering Bulthuis to pay restitution for the 

cost of the methamphetamine cleanup. Id. Here, the Clandestine Lab Team

agency is the statutorily mandated victim to whom restitution is owed. We find 

no error in this regard.

[10] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

May, J., and Brown, J., concur.

 

3

Fisher does not challenge the amount of the restitution order, which is supported by information contained 

in the Presentence Investigation Report, to which Fisher did not object. Appellant’s App. p. 77.

4 As noted above, Indiana Code section 35-48-4-17(b) provides that the mandatory restitution ordered 

following a methamphetamine cleanup “shall be used to reimburse the law enforcement agency that assumed 

the costs” of the cleanup.