M.D. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 28, 2016
• Docket: 33A01-1509-JV-1522
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Apr 28 2016, 5:39 am

regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK Indiana Supreme Court court except for the purpose of establishing Court of Appeals and Tax Court the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE John T. Wilson Gregory F. Zoeller Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Richard C. Webster Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

M.D., April 28, 2016 Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No. 33A01-1509-JV-1522 v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Appellee-Petitioner. Mary G. Willis, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 33C01-1503-JD-16

Kirsch, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1509-JV-1522 | April 28, 2016 Page 1 of 4 [1] M.D. appeals his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing battery, 1

which would be a Level 5 felony if committed by an adult. He raises the

following issue for our review on appeal: whether the juvenile court abused its

discretion when it ordered him to serve time in secure detention. We dismiss as

moot.

[2] In March 2015, M.D. and K.B. were both fourteen years old and attended New

Castle Middle School in Henry County, Indiana. On March 9, 2015, K.B. had

a bloody nose, and during seventh hour, M.D. began to flick K.B.’s nose as

they lined up to leave the classroom. M.D. kept asking K.B if he wanted to

fight. M.D. walked to the stairwell, waiting for K.B.; when K.B. approached,

M.D. again asked him if he wanted to fight. K.B. responded, “No” and

“nudged” M.D. out of the way. Tr. at 14. M.D. pushed K.B., and K.B. pushed

him back. M.D. then grabbed K.B. and threw him down the stairs, causing

K.B. to break his right wrist.

[3] On March 26, 2015, the State filed a petition alleging that M.D. was a

delinquent child for committing battery, which would be a Level 5 felony if

committed by an adult. At a fact-finding hearing held on July 31, 2015, M.D.

admitted to flicking K.B.’s nose and to throwing him down the stairs, but M.D.

claimed he was acting in self-defense. At the conclusion of the fact-finding

1 See Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(b), (f)(1).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1509-JV-1522 | April 28, 2016 Page 2 of 4 hearing, the juvenile court entered a true finding for battery, which would be a

Level 5 felony if committed by an adult. At a later-held disposition hearing, the

juvenile court ordered M.D. confined to the Delaware County Detention

Center for ninety days, all suspended except for three weekends.2 M.D. now

appeals.

[4] M.D. argues that the juvenile court abused its discretion when it ordered him to

serve three weekends in secure detention because the goal of such detention was

not to rehabilitate him. Our initial inquiry is to determine whether the doctrine

of mootness precludes us from addressing M.D.’s contention. The long-

standing rule in Indiana has been that a case is deemed moot when no effective

relief can be rendered to the parties before the court. R.A. v. State, 770 N.E.2d

376, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 37 (Ind.

1991)). “When the controversy at issue in a case ‘has been ended or settled, or

in some manner disposed of, so as to render it unnecessary to decide the

question involved, the case will be dismissed.’” A.D. v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1274,

1276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting Dunn v. State, 163 Ind. 317, 321, 71 N.E.

890, 891 (1904)). Here, the juvenile court ordered M.D. to serve three

weekends in secure detention, which were specified as September 4 through 6,

2015, September 18 through 20, 2015, and September 25 through 27, 2015. Tr.

at 77; Appellant’s App. at 32. Thus, M.D. has already completed his time in

2 Although in the dispositional order the juvenile court specified that five consecutive weekends would be served, only three weekends were set for secure detention and included as part of the conditions of probation. Appellant’s App. 28, 32; Tr. at 77.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1509-JV-1522 | April 28, 2016 Page 3 of 4 secure detention, and even if M.D. were to prevail in his argument, this court

would be unable to render him any effective relief. We, therefore, conclude that

this case is deemed moot and dismiss M.D.’s appeal.

[5] Dismissed.

[6] Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A01-1509-JV-1522 | April 28, 2016 Page 4 of 4