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. 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!

  2. 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.

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

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT