J.W.J. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Oct 24 2019, 9:18 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Bruce W. Graham Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Graham Law Firm, P.C. Attorney General
Lafayette, Indiana
Lauren A. Jacobsen
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.W.J., October 24, 2019
Appellant-Respondent, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-JV-1046
v. Appeal from the
Tippecanoe Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable
Appellee-Petitioner Faith A. Graham, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
79D03-1901-JD-6
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] J.W.J. was adjudicated a delinquent for committing what would be two counts
of Level 3 felony rape and two counts of Level 6 felony strangulation if
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1046 | October 24, 2019 Page 1 of 3
committed by an adult. Before the dispositional hearing, J.W.J. underwent a
psycho-sexual assessment with a therapist at Families United, Inc., who
recommended that he be placed in a residential facility because he refused to
admit to the offenses, which the community-based program at Families United
required. The probation department agreed and recommended that J.W.J. be
placed on probation and sent to Pierceton Woods Academy, a residential
facility, as a condition of his probation.
[2] At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court asked the State if it had any
evidence to present, and the State responded that it only had the probation
department’s recommendation. The court then asked defense counsel if she
had any evidence to present, and defense counsel responded “No,” as J.W.J.
was “in agreement with Probation’s recommendation.” Tr. p. 127. When the
court asked defense counsel to clarify whether J.W.J. was “in agreement with
the recommendation to go to Pierceton Woods,” she said “Yes.” Id. Finally,
the court asked J.W.J.’s mother if she agreed with the probation department’s
recommendation, and she responded “Yes.” Id. at 128. A probation officer
then testified that the probation department recommended Pierceton Woods
because J.W.J. “denie[d] any wrongdoing,” which made a community-based
program like Families United inappropriate. Id. at 129. Notably, defense
counsel did not ask the probation officer any questions or present any evidence
or argument that another option was more appropriate. The court accepted the
probation department’s recommendation.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1046 | October 24, 2019 Page 2 of 3
[3] J.W.J. now appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in placing him
at Pierceton Woods. The State responds that J.W.J. “invited any alleged error
in his placement and consequently cannot seek to take advantage of it on
appeal.” Appellee’s Br. p. 10. We agree with the State. Pursuant to the
invited-error doctrine, a party cannot take advantage of an error he “commits,
invites, or which is the natural consequence of [his] own neglect or
misconduct.” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018). At the
dispositional hearing, J.W.J. and his mother agreed that he should be placed at
Pierceton Woods and did not present any evidence or argument that another
option was more appropriate. J.W.J. didn’t address these crucial facts in his
brief or file a reply brief to respond to the State’s invited-error argument. We
therefore affirm the juvenile court.
Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bradford, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JV-1046 | October 24, 2019 Page 3 of 3