Mathias, J.
….
… On December 11, 2014, Henderson pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy … and sentencing was left to the discretion of trial court.
… The trial court ordered Henderson to serve consecutive terms of 365 days executed for each misdemeanor offense. The trial court also imposed an aggregate $10,000 fine (or $5,000 for each count) but failed to hold an indigency hearing. Henderson now appeals.
Consecutive Sentences
Henderson claims that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentences consecutive to each other because the two convictions “arise from the same facts and circumstances” and “[t]he aggravators are insufficient for consecutive sentences.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] The decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, and, on appeal, we review the trial court’s decision only for an abuse of that discretion. [Citation omitted.]
….
Without citation to authority, Henderson … argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive terms because “these events occur simultaneous and are not part of separate events. They are one and the same conduct.” Contrary to Henderson’s claim, no statutory, constitutional, or common law contains a restriction on imposing consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. Dunn v. State, 900 N.E.2d 1291, 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); Cf. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c).
The $10,000 Fine
Next, Henderson argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine for each conviction without determining his ability to pay. Henderson maintains that he is indigent and observes that a public defender was assigned to represent him.
….
Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18 provides that whenever it imposes a fine, the trial court “shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent.” (Emphasis added). Importantly, trial courts have the authority to assess fines against an indigent defendant; however, the indigent defendant may not be imprisoned for failure to pay those fines or costs. See Whedon v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002).
Our supreme court has astutely observed that “a defendant’s financial resources are more appropriately determined not at the time of the initial sentencing but at the conclusion of incarceration.” [Footnote omitted.] See id. at 1279. Nevertheless, Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18 requires the trial court to hold a hearing when it imposes a fine.
We also observe conflicting evidence in the record concerning Henderson’s financial status. The trial court appointed counsel to Henderson for the trial and appellate proceedings in this case. … Although appointed counsel implies indigency in this case, during preparation of the presentence investigation report, Henderson reported that his “financial situation is good.” He also stated that his annual income is $35,000 to $45,000.
For all of these reasons, we remand this case to the trial court to hold a hearing as required by Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18. … We also re-emphasize that the trial court may in its discretion fine Henderson whether or not he is found to be indigent.
….
Baker, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
….
… On December 11, 2014, Henderson pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief and Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy … and sentencing was left to the discretion of trial court.
… The trial court ordered Henderson to serve consecutive terms of 365 days executed for each misdemeanor offense. The trial court also imposed an aggregate $10,000 fine (or $5,000 for each count) but failed to hold an indigency hearing. Henderson now appeals.
Consecutive Sentences
Henderson claims that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering him to serve his sentences consecutive to each other because the two convictions “arise from the same facts and circumstances” and “[t]he aggravators are insufficient for consecutive sentences.” [Record citations omitted throughout.] The decision to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences lies within the trial court’s sound discretion, and, on appeal, we review the trial court’s decision only for an abuse of that discretion. [Citation omitted.]
….
Without citation to authority, Henderson … argues that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing consecutive terms because “these events occur simultaneous and are not part of separate events. They are one and the same conduct.” Contrary to Henderson’s claim, no statutory, constitutional, or common law contains a restriction on imposing consecutive sentences for misdemeanor offenses. Dunn v. State, 900 N.E.2d 1291, 1292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); Cf. Ind. Code § 35-50-1-2(c).
The $10,000 Fine
Next, Henderson argues that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay a $5,000 fine for each conviction without determining his ability to pay. Henderson maintains that he is indigent and observes that a public defender was assigned to represent him.
….
Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18 provides that whenever it imposes a fine, the trial court “shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the convicted person is indigent.” (Emphasis added). Importantly, trial courts have the authority to assess fines against an indigent defendant; however, the indigent defendant may not be imprisoned for failure to pay those fines or costs. See Whedon v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1276, 1279 (Ind. 2002).
Our supreme court has astutely observed that “a defendant’s financial resources are more appropriately determined not at the time of the initial sentencing but at the conclusion of incarceration.” [Footnote omitted.] See id. at 1279. Nevertheless, Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18 requires the trial court to hold a hearing when it imposes a fine.
We also observe conflicting evidence in the record concerning Henderson’s financial status. The trial court appointed counsel to Henderson for the trial and appellate proceedings in this case. … Although appointed counsel implies indigency in this case, during preparation of the presentence investigation report, Henderson reported that his “financial situation is good.” He also stated that his annual income is $35,000 to $45,000.
For all of these reasons, we remand this case to the trial court to hold a hearing as required by Indiana Code section 35-38-1-18. … We also re-emphasize that the trial court may in its discretion fine Henderson whether or not he is found to be indigent.
….
Baker, J., and Bailey, J., concur.