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

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
ADVERTISEMENT