Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-CR-1550| January 25, 2017 Page 1 of 4

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

Victoria L. Bailey

Marion County Public Defender Agency

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Ellen H. Meilaender

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Eric Hollis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

January 25, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1607-CR-1550

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Angela DowDavis, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G16-1508-F6-29206

Robb, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-CR-1550| January 25, 2017 Page 2 of 4

Case Summary and Issue

[1] Eric Hollis pleaded guilty to battery as a Class A misdemeanor and the trial 

court ordered Hollis to pay $476 in restitution. Hollis now appeals, raising the 

sole issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering $476 in

restitution. Concluding the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On July 27, 2015, Hollis intentionally or knowingly pushed Angella McIntosh, 

causing injury. McIntosh sought treatment at Eskenazi Hospital in 

Indianapolis where she underwent X-Rays and a CT scan. Hollis later pleaded 

guilty to battery as a Class A misdemeanor, and as part of the plea agreement, 

he agreed to reimburse McIntosh for her medical bills. The trial court accepted 

the plea, sentenced Hollis to one year in the Indiana Department of Correction

with 361 days suspended to probation, and ordered restitution as a condition of 

probation. At a restitution hearing, McIntosh testified she sought treatment at 

Eskenazi Hospital for the injuries caused by Hollis, and as a result of the 

treatment, she received medical bills from the hospital totaling approximately 

$476, which she has not yet paid. Hollis did not cross-examine McIntosh. The 

State also admitted notices from a collection agency showing McIntosh owed 

$216.00 to the Indiana University Radiology Association and $260.00 to the IU 

Health Indiana Clinic. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ordered 

Hollis to pay McIntosh $476 in restitution. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-CR-1550| January 25, 2017 Page 3 of 4

Discussion and Decision

[3] Hollis argues the trial court abused its discretion in ordering restitution. 

Specifically, he argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence to prove 

McIntosh incurred $476 in medical bills and therefore the trial court’s order 

amounted to mere speculation or conjecture. We disagree.

[4] Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3(a)(2) states a trial court may order a defendant

to make restitution to the victim of the crime and shall base its restitution order, 

in part, upon consideration of medical and hospital costs incurred by the victim 

as a result of the crime. “The amount of actual loss is a factual matter that can 

be determined only upon the presentation of evidence.” Bennett v. State, 862 

N.E.2d 1281, 1286-87 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Evidence supporting a restitution 

order is sufficient if it affords a reasonable basis for estimating loss and does not 

subject the trier of fact to mere speculation or conjecture.” J.H. v. State, 950 

N.E.2d 731, 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted) (describing Indiana Code section 35-50-5-3). We review an order of 

restitution for an abuse of discretion. Bennett, 862 N.E.2d at 1286. A trial court 

abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effects of the 

facts and circumstances before it. Id.

[5] Here, the State admitted collection notices sent to McIntosh totaling $476 and 

we acknowledge these notices, when taken alone, may not be sufficient to 

support a restitution order. However, McIntosh testified she sought treatment 

from Eskenazi Hospital as a result of her injuries and underwent X-Rays and a 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1607-CR-1550| January 25, 2017 Page 4 of 4

CT scan. She further testified she received medical bills for those services 

totaling approximately $476, which she has not yet paid. Hollis could have 

cross-examined McIntosh as to whether she had previously visited Eskenazi 

Hospital or any IU Health Hospital, and if so, whether those visits could have 

given rise to the collection notices she received, but he chose not to. 

McIntosh’s testimony, coupled with the collection notices admitted into 

evidence, afforded the trial court a reasonable basis for estimating McIntosh’s 

loss and we therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

ordering Hollis to pay $476 in restitution. 

Conclusion

[6] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Hollis to pay $476 in

restitution. Accordingly, we affirm.

[7] Affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur.