Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 1 of 8

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

Rory Gallagher

Marion County Public Defender

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Matthew B. Mackenzie

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

John Lee Couch,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

May 24, 2018

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1711-CR-2655

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable David Hooper, 

Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G12-1706-CM-23110

Pyle, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 2 of 8

Statement of the Case

[1] John Lee Couch (“Couch”) appeals the trial court’s restitution order entered 

following his conviction for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief1 and Class 

B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

2

 Couch argues that the trial court erred by 

ordering him to pay $144.00 in restitution to the victim, contending that the 

amount of restitution was based on insufficient evidence. Because Couch 

specifically agreed that $144.00 was the amount of restitution, he invited any

alleged error with the restitution order and has waived his appellate challenge to 

restitution.

[2] We affirm.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by ordering Couch to pay $144.00 in 

restitution to the victim.

Facts

[3] On June 21, 2017, Couch was injured in a car accident and taken by ambulance 

to the emergency room (“ER”) at Eskenazi Hospital (“Eskenazi”). When 

Couch arrived at Eskenazi, he was strapped to a backboard and had a C-collar 

around his neck. An ER nurse, Rachel Thomas (“Nurse Thomas”), took 

Couch from the EMTs, put him into an ER room, and performed an initial 

 

1

IND. CODE § 35-43-1-2(a). This statute was subsequently amended after the commission of Couch’s offense, 

and an amended version of the statute will become effective on July 1, 2018.

2

I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 3 of 8

assessment. Nurse Thomas noted that Couch was “a little anxious” and that he 

seemed “ready to . . . get off that board and out of that C-collar.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 

9). Nurse Thomas told Couch that a doctor would come to see him, and she 

then left the room. Shortly thereafter, Nurse Thomas heard a “loud bang” 

coming from Couch’s room. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 9). Nurse Thomas went back into 

the room, where she saw that the call light had been ripped from the wall and

that a suction unit had been broken off the wall. Couch was “very agitated, 

cussing, yelling, [and] calling names.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). Couch demanded 

“treatment right away” and stated that he was going to leave and find another 

hospital. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 10). Nurse Thomas assured Couch that a doctor would 

soon see him and called for security. The security officer told Couch that he 

could not destroy hospital property and that he needed to calm down and 

remain quiet. The security officer also informed Couch that a doctor would 

soon see him. After Nurse Thomas and the security officer left the room, 

Couch loudly and “continually” yelled and cussed. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17). After 

Couch was treated and discharged, the security officer went to talk to Couch, 

who tried to walk away. Couch yelled and made “a loud scene” and was 

eventually arrested. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 28). Couch admitted to the security officer 

that he had “broke the stuff off the wall[.]” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 28). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 4 of 8

[4] The State charged Couch with Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and two 

counts of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

3

 In October 2017, the trial 

court held a bench trial, during which Couch testified and denied that he had 

told the security officer that he had broken anything. The trial court found 

Couch guilty of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and one count of Class 

B misdemeanor disorderly conduct, and it found him not guilty of the other 

Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge.4 Per the State’s request, the 

trial court set the sentencing hearing out one week so that the State could obtain 

“the exact cost of the suction unit . . . to include . . . as part of the restitution.” 

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 41). 

[5] During the subsequent sentencing hearing, the following exchange occurred 

regarding restitution:

THE COURT: Remind me why we kicked [the sentencing 

hearing] out. Was it restitution?

[THE STATE]: The restitution. We were trying to get the exact 

amount of the suction device that was broken.

THE COURT: Oh, yes. Any witnesses here, or any agreements?

[THE STATE]: We have a receipt for $144.

THE COURT: Do you agree with that?

 

3 One count alleged that Couch had made an unreasonable noise and continued to do so after being asked to 

stop, see INDIANA CODE § 35-45-1-3(a)(2), and the other count alleged that he had engaged in fighting or 

tumultuous conduct. See I.C. § 35-45-1-3(a)(1).

4 The trial court found him guilty of the disorderly conduct charge relating to making an unreasonable noise.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 5 of 8

[COUCH’S ATTORNEY]: Judge, I don’t have any reason to 

dispute the receipt, no.

THE COURT: Okay. Because I’ve been reversed on this stuff. I 

need you to either continue it, or you agree to it, we have a 

hearing, I mean. You don’t dispute it, which means what? I 

know he can’t agree because he thinks he – he wants to maintain 

his innocence.

[COUCH’S ATTORNEY]: Right. Can I speak to my client just 

briefly?

THE COURT: Yeah. I guess, “we’re not disputing restitution” 

type of saying might cover you?

[COUCH’S ATTORNEY]: I think that’s accurate. We are not 

disputing the amount of restitution.

(Tr. Vol. 2 at 42-43). Thereafter, the trial court moved to sentencing 

recommendations. The State argued that the trial court should order Couch to 

do forty hours of community service and asked the court to enter a restitution 

order for $144.00. Couch’s counsel responded, “Judge, we agreed upon the 

restitution in the amount of $144” and then stated that “[f]or that reason, . . . I 

think fewer hours of community service would be appropriate.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 

44). For each of Couch’s convictions, the trial court imposed a one hundred 

and eighty (180) day suspended sentence, and it ordered that these sentences be 

served concurrently. The trial court also ordered Couch to pay $144.00 in 

restitution to Eskenazi and to do twenty-four hours of community service. 

Couch now appeals.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 6 of 8

Decision

[6] Couch argues that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay $144.00 in 

restitution.5 “[A] trial court has the authority to order a defendant convicted of 

a crime to make restitution to the victim[] of the crime.” Henderson v. State, 848 

N.E.2d 341, 345 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citing IND. CODE § 35-50-5-3). “The 

principal purpose of restitution is to vindicate the rights of society and to 

impress upon the defendant the magnitude of the loss the crime has caused.” 

Pearson v. State, 883 N.E.2d 770, 772 (Ind. 2008), reh’g denied. “Restitution also 

serves to compensate the offender’s victim.” Id. When a victim has incurred 

property damage as a result of a defendant’s crime, the trial court’s restitution 

order will be “based on the actual cost of repair (or replacement if repair is 

inappropriate)[.]” I.C. § 35-50-5-3(a)(1). “The amount of a victim’s loss is 

a factual matter that can be determined only on presentation of evidence.” 

Smith v. State, 990 N.E.2d 517, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. An order 

of restitution lies within the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed only 

where there has been an abuse of discretion. Kays v. State, 963 N.E.2d 507, 509 

(Ind. 2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is clearly 

against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances or when the trial 

 

5 Couch, acknowledging that he did not object to restitution during sentencing, argues that the trial court 

committed fundamental error by ordering him to pay $144.00 in restitution. The State contends that Couch’s 

lack of objection results in waiver of his argument on appeal. Generally, the failure to object to an award of 

restitution will result in waiver of an appellate challenge to the award; however, we note that our Court has 

“emphasized this Court’s preference for reviewing a trial court’s restitution order even absent an objection by 

the defendant.” See C.H. v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1086, 1095-97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 7 of 8

court has misinterpreted the law. Gil v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1231, 1234 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2013). 

[7] Couch contends that the amount of restitution was based on insufficient 

evidence because the State did not offer the receipt for the requested restitution 

of $144.00 as an exhibit during the sentencing hearing. The State responds that 

Couch’s “argument that the State failed to present sufficient evidence proving 

the loss sustained ignores the fact that [Couch] agreed to the accuracy of the 

amount, thereby relieving the State of any need to prove it.” (State’s Br. 9). 

The State further asserts that Couch “cannot tell the State [that] he does not 

dispute the amount and then turn around on appeal and complain that the State 

did not present the evidence he said was unnecessary.” (State’s Br. 9). We 

agree with the State.

[8] Here, during the sentencing hearing, the State sought restitution for the suction 

device that Couch had broken at Eskenazi. The State indicated that it had a 

receipt for $144.00, and Couch stated that he was “not disputing the amount of 

restitution.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 43). When making a sentencing argument, Couch 

referred to his stipulation as a means to argue for lesser hours of community 

service. Specifically, his counsel stated, “Judge, we agreed upon the restitution 

in the amount of $144” and “[f]or that reason, . . . I think fewer hours of 

community service would be appropriate.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 44). 

[9] Despite his agreement regarding the amount of restitution, Couch now attempts 

to argue on appeal that there is insufficient evidence to support the restitution
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1711-CR-2655 | May 24, 2018 Page 8 of 8

amount ordered by the trial court. We reject his argument because of invited 

error. A defendant “cannot invite error and then request relief on appeal based 

upon that ground[.]” Mitchell v. State, 730 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2000), trans. denied. Invited error is not reversible error. C.H. v. State, 15 N.E.3d 

1086, 1097 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Because Couch agreed to the 

amount of restitution, he invited any alleged error and waived his argument

that there is insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount. See, e.g., 

C.H., 15 N.E.3d at 1097 (holding that the appellant’s restitution argument was 

waived where he had invited any error regarding restitution); Mitchell, 730 

N.E.2d at 201 (providing that the defendant had waived his appellate challenge 

to the trial court’s restitution order because he had invited the error alleged). 

[10] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Barnes, J., concur.