ILNews

Unequal protection and due process claims fail because juvenile was not sentenced

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a teenager’s claim of unequal treatment and violation of his due process rights because he incorrectly referred to the juvenile court’s disposition order as a sentence.

TLC, the teenager, was given home placement and later placed in several youth treatment facilities for his behavioral problems. After he hit his mother and put her in a headlock, the state filed a delinquency petition against him, alleging that he committed the offenses of battery and criminal mischief, both Class B misdemeanors if TLC had been an adult.

The juvenile court subsequently awarded wardship of TLC to the Indiana Department of Correction.

TLC appealed, arguing, in part, that the juvenile court erred in “sentencing him.” He said he received unequal treatment under the law and his due process rights were violated.

The Court of Appeals noted TLC incorrectly asserted he was sentenced. It pointed out that the juvenile court issued a dispositional order rather than a sentence because it provided for treatment rather than punishment.

In regard to TLC’s other claims, the Court of Appeals noted he did not present any evidence supporting his unequal protection and due process rights arguments.

Also, the COA found TLC presented no evidence that he was treated any differently than the other juveniles under similar circumstances, so his equal protection argument fails.

 “In sum, all of TLC’s claims are based on the false premise that TLC received a sentence, which he did not,” Judge John Baker wrote in In the Matter of TLC, a Child alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana, 60A01-1308-JV-377. “Thus, TLC has no sentencing claim on appeal. The juvenile court tried home placement without monitoring, home placement with monitoring, Southwest, Valle Vista, and the Gibault facilities, all before turning to the DOC. For all these reasons, we conclude that the juvenile court’s placement and disposition of TLC was consistent with the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it. Thus, TLC’s claim fails.”

 

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