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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT