ILNews

Court reverses indeterminate commitment of juvenile

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the interplay between sections 6 and 10 of Indiana Code 31-37-19 governing juvenile commitment for the first time today. The judges noted when they are applied separately the sections produce opposite results regarding the purpose of the statutes.   

D.C. pleaded guilty to what would have been Class A felony burglary if committed by an adult and was committed to the Department of Correction for 24 months and also was ordered to an indeterminate commitment to the DOC until he turned 21. He was 14 years old when he committed the crime. He argued that the court erred by imposing both a determinate and indeterminate commitment, and that he should have been placed in a less restrictive facility because one was available.

The judges didn’t find the trial court erred in ordering D.C. committed to the DOC even though he had been accepted into another facility because he had a history of adjudications, and stayed at residential facilities in the past. He always re-offended once being released.

“Given the serious nature of D.C.’s offense and the likelihood that he will reoffend, this is clearly a situation in which commitment to a less restrictive environment than DOC is not in the best interest of D.C. or of the community,” wrote Judge Margret Robb.

In D.C. v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1002-JV-100, the judges then examined the statutes at question here – I.C. 31-37-19-6 and -10 that deal with dispositional decrees for children found to be delinquent for committing an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult.

Section 6 says except as provided in Section 10, the court awards wardship of a juvenile to the DOC and the DOC determines the placement and duration of placement. Section 10 applies to D.C. because he was at least 14 when he committed the Class A felony burglary and has prior unrelated adjudications. Section 10 says the court can’t place a child in a facility for more than 2 years.

The judges agreed with D.C. that Section 6 precludes a juvenile court from entering a dispositional order with both an indeterminate commitment under Section 6 and a determinant commitment under Section 10.

Judge Robb noted that Section 10 is clearly aimed at the most serious juvenile offenders, yet it’s possible that someone who offends under Section 6 may be placed in a facility for a time longer than the 2 years ordered under Section 10.  

“We acknowledge a juvenile committed under Section 6 could also be released in less than two years and therefore ultimately receive a lesser penalty than a juvenile sentenced under Section 10. However, at their extremes, sections 6 and 10 when applied separately produce results antithetical to the purpose of the statutes,” she wrote.

The Court of Appeals reversed the part of the dispositional order imposing commitments under both sections and remanded for a new order imposing only a determinate commitment under Section 10.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT