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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT