Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1607

- CR

- 1550 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 7 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.

A TTORNEY FOR A PPELLANT Victoria L. Bailey Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, Indiana A TTORNEY S FOR A PPELLEE 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

. J anuary 25, 2017 Court of Appeals Ca se No. 49A02

- 1607

- CR

- 1550 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Angela Dow

Davis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G16

- 1508

- F6

- 29206

Robb , Judge
.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1607

- CR

- 1550 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 7 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 discreti on, 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. T he trial court accepted the plea , sentenced Hollis to one year in the I ndiana 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 med ical bills from the hospital totaling approximately $476, which she has not yet paid. Hollis did not cross

- examine McIntosh. T he State also admitted notices from a collection agency showing McIntosh owed $216.00 to the Indiana University Radiology Associ ation 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 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 7 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 sp eculation 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 a nd 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, McIntos h testified she sought treatment from Eskenazi Hospital as a result of her injuries and underwent X

- Ray s and aCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02

- 1607

- CR

- 1550 | J a n u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 7 Page 4 of 4

CT scan. She further testified she received medical bills fo r those services totaling approximately $476, which she has not yet paid. Hollis co uld 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 order ing Hollis to pay $476 in restitution. Accordingly, we affirm.

[7] Affirmed.

K irsch, J., and Barnes, J., concur

.