Background
De’Mario Streeter pleaded guilty across three cases to Level 5 felony domestic battery, Level 5 felony stalking, and Level 6 felony intimidation. The domestic battery fractured his girlfriend’s jaw and required surgery. His later threats targeted a police detective investigating him and included references to death, revenge, personal information, and a handgun. Even while incarcerated, he repeatedly violated no-contact restrictions and directed communications toward the detective, who described continuing fear and disruption.
The plea agreement produced dismissal of nineteen felony counts and nine misdemeanor counts across the broader set of pending matters. The trial court found a prolific criminal history, repeated no-contact violations, recent supervision violations, and harm exceeding the elements of the offenses. It imposed consecutive terms totaling thirteen and one-half years. It also entered civil judgment liens for three sets of $189 court costs and $80 in jail-booking and death-benefit fees. Although the court found Streeter indigent for appointed counsel, his presentence report said he had earned about $6,000 monthly before incarceration and expected to work after release.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the prison term. Judge Bradford wrote that a guilty plea need not be treated as mitigating when it is pragmatic or yields a substantial benefit. The extensive dismissal of other charges supplied that benefit. The trial court also properly treated the extraordinary harm to the detective as aggravating: the repeated contacts and threats produced sustained hypervigilance and fear beyond that necessary to establish stalking. In any event, three independent and unchallenged aggravators supported the sentence.
The majority also upheld the court-cost judgments. The trial court had questioned Streeter about finances during the proceedings, and the civil liens did not expose him to imprisonment for nonpayment. The presentence information supported an inference that he could pay later from postrelease earnings even though he qualified for appointed counsel while incarcerated. Chief Judge Tavitas dissented from that portion, reasoning that Indiana Supreme Court precedent and the governing statute bar costs after an indigency finding unless payment is suspended and a later ability-to-pay hearing is held.
The panel unanimously reversed the $80 in fees. A $75 jail-booking fee was authorized in amount, but Porter County’s local rule specified particular collection methods. Adding it to a judgment lien was not among them. The $5 death-benefit fee likewise could be deducted from a cash or surety bond, but Streeter had posted neither. Because the trial court used collection mechanisms not authorized by the controlling provisions, those fees had to be removed while the convictions, sentence, and court costs remained intact.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea may carry little or no mitigating weight when it secures dismissal of a large number of additional charges.
- Victim harm can be an aggravator when the court explains how its severity exceeds the harm inherent in the offense, and one valid aggravator may sustain an enhanced sentence.
- The majority permits civil court-cost judgments despite present indigency when the record supports later earning capacity and nonpayment cannot lead to incarceration.
- Even a fee authorized by statute or local rule cannot be collected through a method that the governing authority does not permit.
Why It Matters
Streeter separates three questions that Indiana criminal practitioners should address distinctly: whether an amount is authorized, whether the defendant has or may acquire an ability to pay, and whether the chosen collection device is lawful. Sentencing orders should identify the statutory or local-rule basis for every assessment and follow its specified mechanism. Defense counsel should object not only to amount and indigency findings but also to collection through a lien, bond deduction, probation condition, or commissary account.
The divided discussion of court costs also preserves an important issue for further review in Indiana. Until higher authority resolves the tension identified by the dissent, the record should establish whether payment is due now or later, whether a new indigency hearing will occur, what evidence supports future capacity, and whether the judgment protects against incarceration solely for inability to pay. Prosecutors and clerks should likewise confirm that standardized sentencing forms do not convert locally authorized charges into unsupported civil liens. Small assessments can generate reversible error when an order skips the collection structure chosen by statute or local rule.