Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A05-1604-CR-939| November 15, 2016 Page 1 of 3

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Peter D. Todd

Elkhart, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Christina D. Pace

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Daniel N. Begly,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

November 15, 2016

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A05-1604-CR-939

Appeal from the Elkhart Superior 

Court

The Honorable Evan S. Roberts, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

20D01-1506-F5-122

Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A05-1604-CR-939| November 15, 2016 Page 2 of 3

Statement of the Case

[1] Daniel Begly appeals the trial court’s order imposing a $10,000 fine following 

his convictions for attempted kidnapping, as a Level 5 felony; battery against a 

public safety officer, as a Level 5 felony; resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 

felony; and battery, as a Class A misdemeanor. Begly presents a single issue for 

our review, namely, whether the trial court erred when it did not hold an 

indigency hearing to determine his ability to pay the fine. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] Following a jury trial, Begly was convicted of three felonies and one 

misdemeanor, and the trial court sentenced Begly to an aggregate term of seven 

years. At sentencing, the trial court ordered Begly to pay “a fine of $10,000 

which is not suspended[1] and is due and payable one (1) year after his release 

from incarceration.” Appellant’s App. at 29. Begly’s counsel advised the trial 

court that an indigency hearing was required, but the trial court disagreed and 

stated that it would hold an indigency hearing when the fine became due and 

payable. This appeal ensued.

 

1

 Neither party addresses the fact that the trial court’s order is inconsistent in that it states both that the fine is 

not suspended and that it is not “due and payable” until one year after his release from incarceration. 

Because the parties do not dispute the wording of the order, we do not address this apparent inconsistency. 

Regardless, it is clear from the trial court’s order that payment of the fine is suspended until one year after 

Begly’s release from incarceration.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A05-1604-CR-939| November 15, 2016 Page 3 of 3

Discussion and Decision 

[3] Indiana Code Section 35-38-1-18 (2016) provides in relevant part as follows:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whenever the court 

imposes a fine, it shall conduct a hearing to determine whether 

the convicted person is indigent. . . .

(b) A court may impose a fine and suspend payment of all or part 

of the fine until the convicted person has completed all or part of 

the sentence. If the court suspends payment of the fine, the court 

shall conduct a hearing at the time the fine is due to determine whether 

the convicted person is indigent.

(Emphasis added).

[4] Here, it is undisputed that the $10,000 fine imposed by the trial court is not due 

and payable until one year after Begly is released from incarceration. Indiana 

Code Section 35-38-1-18 unambiguously provides that where, as here, the court 

suspends payment of a fine, no hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay the fine 

shall be conducted until it is due. Begly’s contention to the contrary is without 

merit.

[5] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Baker, J., concur.