Oscar Guillen, Sr. v. Lake County Clerk (NFP)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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. FILED Dec 16 2008, 9:51 am APPELLANT PRO SE: CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court OSCAR GUILLEN, SR. Carlisle, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA OSCAR GUILLEN, SR., Appellant, vs. LAKE COUNTY CLERK, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 45A03-0807-CV-367 APPEAL FROM THE LAKE SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable John R. Pera, Judge Cause No. 45D10-0804-CB-8 December 16, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION DARDEN, Judge STATEMENT OF THE CASE Oscar Guillen, Sr., pro se, appeals the trial court s denial of his motion to correct error. We affirm. ISSUE Whether the trial court erred in denying Guillen s motion to correct error. FACTS On April 15, 2008, Guillen filed in the Lake Superior Court Civil Division a pro se Petition for Leave to Proceed as a Poor Person and Affidavit of Indigency, and a Motion to Proceed with this Case Cause by Documentary Submittion [sic], a Jurisdictional Statement and a Law Suit Complaint. (Order of April 15, 2008). Guillen s six-page complaint sought to recover from the Lake County Clerk $1,150.00 in bond money posted by Guillen in various criminal cases filed against him in the Lake County courts in 2003 and 2004 and dismissed in late 2004. That same day, the trial court denied his petition for leave to proceed as a poor person, based on his failure to provide the requisite certified copy of his prisoner s trust fund account for the previous six months. See Ind. Code § 33-37-3-3. The trial court also reviewed Guillen s complaint pursuant to Indiana Code section 34-58-1-2, which review includes a determination of whether the claim is one upon which relief may be granted. The trial court concluded that it was not appropriate for the Lake Superior 2 Court Civil Division to review the disposition of bond money with respect to charges filed in criminal court (or courts) in various criminal cases. (Order of April 15, 2008). Guillen filed a motion to correct error. On May 23, 2008, the trial court denied the motion. DECISION Guillen s appellate brief puts forth no recognizable argument as to why the trial court s order is erroneous. He simply asks that he be provided disclosure as to any disbursement of [his] posted moneys [sic], and to know where [his] posted bond monies went to. Guillen s Br. at 4, 5. As the appellant, Guillen bears the burden of showing that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to correct error. Page v. Page, 849 N.E.2d 769, 771 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). Although there is no appellee brief, Guillen still must establish a prima facie case of trial court error. Hopper Resources, Ind., v. Webster, 878 N.E.2d 418, 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. If the appellant is unable to meet that burden, we will affirm. Aboulalkah v. Sharps, 795 N.E.2d 488, 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 490). Indiana Code section 35-33-8-3.1 authorizes the court that admitted the defendant to bail to determine the disposition of retained bail bond charges and fees; and Indiana Code section 35-3-8-7 authorizes the court having jurisdiction over the criminal case to determine any bail bond forfeiture. Hence, the statutes are in accord with the trial court s conclusion that the matters asserted by Guillen should properly be addressed to the 3 criminal court in which the charges had been filed. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in denying Guillen s motion to correct error. Affirmed. RILEY, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.