ILNews

COA finds fundamental error in juvenile case, again

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case identical to one it ruled on earlier this year, the Indiana Court of Appeals today found the state violated a juvenile’s right to counsel at her detention hearing.

Juvenile A.S. was detained in October 2008 on suspicion of battery. At her detention hearing the next day, no witnesses were sworn in and no evidence was heard. She and her mother signed a document that the trial court apparently treated as a waiver to a number of rights, including A.S.’s right to counsel. The magistrate never asked if A.S. wanted legal representation or counsel appointed, nor did the magistrate inform her of the burdens of proceeding pro se.

A.S. had been in trouble before and at that time, she and her mother signed the same waiver. In A.S. v. State, 923 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), the appellate court ruled A.S.’s alleged waiver of counsel was invalid. She had moved for relief from judgment finding her to be delinquent because she had been adjudicated without counsel and without waiving her right to counsel.

The Court of Appeals found the latest waiver A.S. signed also didn’t comport with constitutional requirements. A.S. was appealing in the instant case that she was denied certain rights at her initial detention hearing, she shouldn’t have been adjudicated as a delinquent because her hearing didn’t take place within 60 days, and she wasn’t tried by a jury.

The state argued against the appellate court addressing the merits of the violation because A.S. didn’t raise the claim and it’s moot because she’s no longer detained.  

The Court of Appeals in A.S. v. State of Indiana, No. 10A01-0908-JV-423, ruled A.S.’s constitutional claim wasn’t waived due to fundamental error because she was not adequately informed of her right to counsel. The appellate judges decided to consider A.S.’s constitutional right because it reflects a question of great public importance and the issue is likely to recur. They found her initial detention was improper because the court didn’t get a constitutionally sufficient waiver of counsel from her and didn’t allow her to present evidence or confront witnesses.

The judges rejected her argument that her hearing didn’t happen within the required 60 days. Her hearing happened 90 days after she was initially detained. Every Saturday, Sunday, and holiday during that period should be excluded from calculation, which then puts A.S.’s hearing held within the 60-day period. In addition, A.S. did not have a right to trial by jury.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT