ILNews

Teen must pay for electronic monitoring device through community service

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the order by a juvenile court that required a teen who cut off her electronic monitoring device to make restitution for the device through community service.

A.H. admitted to what would be a Class D felony theft if she was an adult and received a suspended commitment to the Indiana Department of Correction. After violating her probation, she was placed on electronic monitoring and signed an agreement that she would be required to pay for any damage or replacement costs of equipment.

A.H. cut off the device, left it in a park and ran away. At a dispositional hearing, the juvenile court ordered her to pay $575 in restitution for the device by way of performing community service, the amount specified in the electronic monitoring agreement. A.H. objected, but the court ordered her to perform the community service.

The same rule that applies in criminal cases – that a trial court is free to award restitution as part of the sentence when the plea agreement does not include restitution but the sentence is left open – should also apply in juvenile cases, the COA held. So even though no restitution was mentioned in the admissions agreement, the juvenile court could properly order it because the disposition was left open.

It does not matter that the juvenile court did not make a direct inquiry into A.H.’s ability to pay because she was not required to make monetary restitution. The trial court imposed the community service aspect based on A.H.’s mother’s recommendation.

Finally, the COA found the state established the actual amount of loss that happened when A.H. cut off her device. The evidence shows the teen signed the agreement that stated the electronic monitoring device was worth $575, and A.H. stipulated to that amount when she signed the agreement. This agreement was before the trial court and the amount was repeated by the probation officer, wrote Judge John Baker in A.H. v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1309-JV-450.

 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT