Brown, J.
Lawrence Amick appeals his sentence for forgery and auto theft as level 6 felonies. He raises one issue which we revise and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering community corrections fees based on a sliding scale. We remand.
… On October 23, 2018, the court held a jury trial, and the jury found him guilty as charged. On December 12, 2018, a sentencing hearing was held and Amick was sentenced to 730 days in community corrections for each count to be served concurrently. …
….
The sentencing order lists concurrent sentences of 730 days for each count with zero days suspended. Under “Sentencing Conditions,” it lists “Community Corrections” under “Condition” and “sliding scale for fees” under “Amount/Comment.” … It lists “Home Detention” and an effective date of December 12, 2018. It also lists certain “Court Costs and Fees” and the corresponding amounts which totaled $285. An order titled “Order of Commitment to Community Corrections (Sentencing location CCC)” states that Amick was sentenced to 730 days executed in Community Corrections and states “sliding scale for fees” for community corrections with an effective date of December 12, 2018.
On December 13, 2018, the Marion County Community Corrections (“MCCC”) filed a memo stating that a bond was posted with the Marion County Clerk’s Office on behalf of Amick in the underlying cause and that he owed monetary obligations to MCCC in the amount of $3,680. It also requested that the bond amount filed with the Clerk’s Office be transferred to it to apply toward the outstanding balance of program costs associated with the services provided to Amick. On December 20, 2018, the court approved the MCCC’s request and entered a “Bond Refund Order,” which states in part:
The defendant in the above-mentioned cause number had a bond posted under receipt number 2016-80366-CCB. There is a refund accessible in the amount of $495. The CLERK of the Court is hereby directed to apply bond money to the following:
1. $185.00 to Court Costs
2. $100.00 to PD Fee
3. $210.00 to Community Corrections
The issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in entering the community corrections fees based on a sliding scale. Sentencing decisions include decisions to impose fees and costs. Johnson v. State, 27 N.E.3d 793, 794 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). A trial court’s sentencing decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584, 588 (Ind. 2007). …
Amick argues that the court abused its discretion when it ordered MCCC to evaluate him for sliding scale fees for the cost of home detention and asserts that the court holds the discretion to impose fees. …
Rules governing the direct placement in a community corrections program are governed by Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6 et seq. State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775, 777 (Ind. 2015). Ind. Code § 35-38-2.6-4.5 provides that, if a court places a person on home detention as part of a community corrections program, the placement must comply with all applicable provisions in Ind. Code §§ 35-382.5. Ind. Code § 35-38-2.5-6(7) provides that an order for home detention must include “[a] requirement that the offender pay a home detention fee set by the court . . . .” (Emphasis added).
The record does not include the “sliding scale” or state who established it or who administers it. We have no way of knowing whether the trial court intended to delegate any statutory responsibility to MCCC or whether the fees requested by MCCC and entered by the trial court were consistent with the sliding scale. Accordingly, we remand the matter to provide the trial court an opportunity to clarify its intent regarding the fee and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
For the foregoing reasons, we remand.
May, J., and Mathias, J., concur.