ILNews

Judges affirm juvenile placement in DOC

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was sympathetic to a teen’s request to not be placed in the Department of Correction, but it noted that all other remedies for his rehabilitation had been exhausted in his home county.
 
In J.J. v. State of Indiana, No. 47A01-0911-JV-557, J.J. appealed the juvenile court’s order that he be committed to the Indiana Boys School, a part of the DOC. J.J. has been in and out of trouble for several years and struggled with mental health problems, drug abuse, and anger management.

“J.J. has been given every chance to work to solve his problems and comply with the rule of law, but he has continued to reoffend,” wrote Chief Judge John Baker. “In just a few short years, J.J. exhausted every rehabilitative program offered by Lawrence County, and is left with no option other than the Department of Correction.”

J.J. argued that the juvenile court abused its discretion because his prior offenses had been “minor,” he had a history of mental health issues, and a history of drug abuse that he claimed he hadn’t received treatment for.

“Although we sympathize with this argument and certainly acknowledge that J.J. is a troubled individual who is grappling with a number of significant problems, we place great weight on the juvenile court’s conclusion that ‘the Lawrence County Juvenile Probation has exhausted what means they have for rehabilitation for [J.J.] …,’” wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court also reversed the juvenile court’s finding of delinquency for committing what would be Class D felony resisting law enforcement had it been committed by an adult in one of his cases. The juvenile referee failed to submit findings for the juvenile court’s review on the matter, as required by Indiana Code Section 31-31-3-6(2). The referee made no findings of fact on the charge and merely completed a boilerplate form stating J.J. committed resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony.

“The juvenile court should be able to read the recommended order drafted by the referee, glean all relevant facts therefrom, and come to an informed decision about whether or not to adopt the referee’s recommendations,” wrote Chief Judge Baker.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT