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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT