F.H. v. State of Indiana

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 22, 2020
• Docket: 19A-JV-1716
• Status: Published

Opinion

FILED Jan 22 2020, 7:10 am

CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Zachary J. Stock Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Zachary J. Stock, Attorney at Law, P.C. Attorney General of Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana Tiffany A. McCoy Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

F.H., January 22, 2020 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-1716 v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Karen M. Love, Appellee-Petitioner. Judge Trial Court Cause Nos. 32D03-1806-JD-129 32D03-1809-JD-187 32D03-1905-JD-82

Bailey, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JV-1716 | January 22, 2020 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] F.H. appeals a dispositional order entered upon his admission that he is a

delinquent child for having possessed a firearm. He raises a single issue,

whether the juvenile court abused its discretion by imposing a fixed term in the

Indiana Department of Correction (“the DOC”) absent statutory grounds. We

remand for correction of the dispositional order.

Facts and Procedural History [2] On May 15, 2018, the State alleged that F.H., then aged fourteen, was

delinquent for having committed an act that would be auto theft, a Level 6

felony, if committed by an adult. F.H. was released into his father’s custody,

subject to electronic monitoring. On June 25, 2018, the State filed a

delinquency petition alleging that F.H. had committed an act that would be

attempted armed robbery, a Level 3 felony, if committed by an adult. In

juvenile proceedings conducted on July 24 and August 28, 2018, F.H. admitted

the truth of the State’s allegations. On September 27, 2018, the juvenile court

ordered wardship of F.H. to the DOC but suspended that commitment.

[3] F.H. was placed at the Wernle Residential Treatment Center, with a

probationary term of ten months. However, F.H. was discharged early, and

placed in his mother’s custody, so that he could undergo knee surgery. On May

22, 2019, the State filed a third delinquency petition, alleging that F.H. had

committed dangerous possession of a firearm, an act that would be a Level 5

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JV-1716 | January 22, 2020 Page 2 of 4 felony if committed by an adult. On June 4, 2019, F.H. admitted he had

committed the alleged act. On July 2, 2019, the juvenile court entered a written

dispositional order committing F.H. to the DOC “until his 18th birthday.”

Appealed Order at 8. F.H. now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [4] The juvenile court has discretion to choose the specific disposition of a juvenile

adjudicated a delinquent “subject to the statutory considerations of the welfare

of the child, the community’s safety, and the Indiana Code’s policy of favoring

the least harsh disposition.” C.T.S. v. State, 781 N.E.2d 1193, 1202 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2003). We will not reverse a juvenile court’s disposition unless the

juvenile court abuses its discretion. Id. The juvenile court abuses its discretion

if its action is “clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts and

circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable, and actual

deductions to be drawn therefrom.” D.B. v. State, 842 N.E.2d 399, 404-05 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2006). F.H. does not challenge the juvenile court’s decision to place

him in the DOC. He appeals his determinate commitment only.

[5] A juvenile is not subject to a determinate term in the DOC absent a specific

determination by the juvenile court that statutory criteria have been satisfied.1

1 For example, Indiana Code Section 31-37-19-9 provides that a child at least thirteen years of age and less than sixteen years of age, who committed an act that would be murder, kidnapping, rape, criminal deviate conduct, or robbery (while armed with a deadly weapon or resulting in bodily injury), if committed by an

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JV-1716 | January 22, 2020 Page 3 of 4 A.T. v. State, 960 N.E.2d 117, 118 (Ind. 2012). Here, no such determination

was made, and the factual record would not support such a determination. The

juvenile court abused its discretion by subjecting F.H. to a determinate

commitment in the DOC.

Conclusion [6] We remand with instructions to the juvenile court to vacate the portion of its

order committing F.H. to the DOC until his eighteenth birthday.

Kirsch, J., and Mathias, J., concur.

adult, may be ordered into the wardship of the DOC for a fixed period not longer than the date on which the child becomes eighteen years of age. Indiana Code Section 31-37-19-10 provides that a court may place a child in the DOC for a fixed term of not more than two years if the following criteria are met: (1) the delinquent child committed an act that would be (if committed by an adult) a felony against a person, a Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 controlled substance offense under IC 35-48-4-1 through IC 35-48-4-5, or burglary as a Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 felony under IC 35-43-2-1; (2) the child is at least fourteen years of age; and (3) the child has two unrelated prior adjudications of delinquency for acts that would be felonies if committed by an adult.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-JV-1716 | January 22, 2020 Page 4 of 4