A W v. State of Indiana ( 2023 )

FILED
Nov 29 2023, 9:58 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Amy E. Karozos Theodore E. Rokita
Public Defender of Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Deidre R. Eltzroth Tyler Banks
Deputy Public Defender Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
A.W., November 29, 2023
Appellant-Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
23A-JV-1609
v. Appeal from the Elkhart Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Michael A.
Appellee-Respondent. Christofeno, Judge
The Honorable Elizabeth Bellin,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
20C01-2004-JD-157
Opinion by Judge Riley.
Judges Crone and Mathias concur.
Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 1 of 13
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
[1] Appellant-Petitioner, A.W., appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 60(B)(6) and (8) without
conducting an evidentiary hearing.
[2] We affirm.
ISSUES
[3] A.W. presents three issues on appeal, which we restate as follows:
(1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) when his
admission to juvenile delinquency was motivated by a threat of criminal
prosecution against his father;
(2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8) when his
admission to juvenile delinquency was the result of ineffective assistance
of trial counsel; and
(3) Whether the trial court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing
on his Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) motions.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[4] On April 16, 2020, the State filed a delinquency petition in Cause 20C01-2004-
JD-000157 (Cause 157), alleging that thirteen-year-old A.W. had committed
child molesting as a Level 3 felony, if committed by an adult. Later, the State
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 2 of 13
filed a second delinquency petition under a separate cause number 20C01-2004-
JD-000158 (Cause 158), 1 alleging that A.W. had committed child molesting as
a Level 4 felony, if committed by an adult. On October 23, 2020, the trial court
conducted a consolidated fact-finding hearing.
[5] At the commencement of the consolidated hearing, the State informed the trial
court that the victim and the victim’s mother in Cause 157 were not present in
court as the State “started having communication problems” with the victim’s
mother, who had indicated “some concerns” about A.W.’s father. (Appellant’s
App. Vol. III, p. 5). The State elaborated that “in one of my meetings with me,
she did indicate she was a little fearful of retaliation. She lives close to [A.W.’s
father], a couple doors down. I assured her I didn’t think [A.W.’s father] was
gonna be causing any problems. I had no reason to believe so.” (Appellant’s
App. Vol. III, p. 10). Being asked about the situation, A.W.’s counsel advised
the trial court, “I was informed, just prior to court, by [A.W.’s father] that he
has had encounters and had to call the police on [victim’s mother] twice in the
past month because of threats she’s made toward A.W.” (Appellant’s App.
Vol. III, p. 14).
[6] The trial court proceeded to hear testimony in the consolidated hearing. The
State called the investigator, who had tried to locate the victim’s mother and the
victim in Cause 157, and a detective, who testified that the local sheriff’s office
1
The record does not include the chronological case summary for this Cause and the exact date of filing the
delinquency petition cannot be determined.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 3 of 13
had received three calls from A.W.’s father in the past month, filing complaints
against the victim’s mother. After the trial court agreed to issue a writ of body
attachment for the victim’s mother, the State mentioned that it would be
“looking at a forfeiture by wrongdoing” “based upon the behavior of [A.W.’s
father] that we’ve introduced here.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. III, pp. 88-89). The
State then returned to presenting testimony of the victim in Cause 158.
[7] After the trial court admitted the forensic interview of the victim in Cause 158,
A.W.’s counsel requested a recess, which was granted. Upon reconvening,
A.W.’s counsel indicated that she had conferred with A.W. and had learned
that A.W. “may want to” admit to the allegations in both delinquency
petitions. (Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 108). The trial court placed A.W.
under oath and specifically inquired if it was his intention to stop the trial and
admit to the allegations claimed by the State. A.W. indicated that he had
received enough time to speak with his counsel and his father about the
decision to admit to the allegations. The trial court then proceeded to advise
A.W. of his rights and informed him that with his admission, he would be
waiving his right to a trial. A.W. confirmed that he understood. A.W.’s
counsel informed the trial court that the decision to admit to the formal
delinquency petitions was a free and voluntary decision made by A.W.:
Trial court: And, A.W., nobody’s forcing you or threatening you
to do this, is that right?
A.W.: (No audible response)
Trial court: You have to answer out loud.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 4 of 13
A.W.: Nobody’s doing that to me.
Trial court: It’s your own free and voluntary decision to - -
A.W.: Yes.
Trial court: - - to admit to what’s been charged. Right?
A.W.: Yes.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. III, p. 114). Factual bases were then tendered to the trial
court and the trial court entered an adjudication in both Causes.
[8] On December 1, 2020, the trial court conducted a dispositional hearing.
During the hearing, the trial court encouraged A.W.’s father to ask questions if
he was confused about anything. Although A.W. and A.W.’s father had an
opportunity to address the trial court and participate in the conversation as to
the best rehabilitative plan for A.W., neither A.W. nor A.W.’s father raised any
concern about A.W. having been coerced to admit to the allegations. At the
close of the hearing, A.W. was placed under probation supervision. After his
admission and dispositional hearing, A.W. appeared before the trial court six
additional times and at no time did he indicate that his original admissions
were not voluntary or that he had been coerced into making his admissions.
On March 23, 2022, after numerous failed attempts at less restrictive
rehabilitation services, A.W. was made a ward of the Indiana Department of
Correction (DOC).
[9] Approximately one year later, on March 21, 2023, A.W. filed a motion for
relief from judgment pursuant to Indiana Trial Rules 60(B)(6) and (8),
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 5 of 13
requesting the trial court to vacate the delinquency adjudications because his
admissions had been motivated by “the perceived threat of a criminal charge
against his father,” and later added a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 195). On May 10, 2023, the trial court conducted
a status hearing on the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
took the “question of timeliness [of the motion] under advisement,” and offered
the parties time to file a supplemental brief on “specifically the issue of
timeliness of the [T.R.] 60(B) motion.” (Transcript p. 13).
[10] On May 31, 2023, the trial court issued a detailed Order denying A.W.’s
motion for relief from judgment under T.R. 60(B)(6) because A.W. “provide[d]
no supporting information by way of affidavit or the like within the record that
contradicts [AW.’s] sworn testimony that his admission was made without
force, threat, or coercion.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 216). The trial court
likewise denied A.W.’s motion under T.R. 60(B)(8) because the motion was
untimely, and no meritorious claim or defense had been identified.
[11] A.W. now appeals. Additional facts will be provided if necessary.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
I. Standard of Review
[12] Because A.W. seeks relief from judgment under Trial Rules 60(B)(6) and (8),
this case implicates two standards of review. When a judgment is void under
Rule 60(B)(6), the trial court has no discretion to enforce it, and thus, we review
the court’s decision de novo. M.H. v. State, 207 N.E.3d 412, 416 (Ind. 2023).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 6 of 13
But under Rule 60(B)(8)’s catchall provision, whether relief is warranted “is left
to the equitable discretion of the trial court,” and thus, we review the court’s
decision for an abuse of that discretion. T.D. v. State, 219 N.E.3d 719, 724 (Ind.
2023). A trial court abuses its discretion if it misinterprets the law or if its
decision clearly contravenes the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before it. See, e.g., id.; Smith v. Franklin Twp. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 151 N.E.3d 271,
273 (Ind. 2020).
II. Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6) 2
[13] Trial Rule 60(B)(6) allows a party to move for relief at any time if “the
judgment is void.” T.R. 60(B)(6); see also Anderson v. Wayne Post 64, Am. Legion
Corp., 4 N.E.3d 1200, 1205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. Therefore, to be
entitled to relief, the party must establish that the judgment is void, not
voidable. Koonce v. Finney, 68 N.E.3d 1086, 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans.
denied. The distinction between these two terms is “no mere semantic quibble.”
Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152, 1154 (Ind. 1998). While a void judgment
“is a complete nullity” without legal effect from its inception, a voidable
judgment “is capable of confirmation or ratification,” making it subject to
2
The trial court denied A.W.’s motion pursuant to T.R. 60(B)(6) based on the established ground that
T.R.60(B) cannot be used to present a claim that could have been, but was not presented, on direct appeal.
See Perkins v. State, 718 N.E.2d 790, 792 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). The trial court noted that A.W. “is requesting
that the [c]ourt hear new evidence related to the voluntariness of his plea, a fact that was known to [A.W.]
when a direct appeal could have been perfected. [A.W.] did not file a direct appeal during his case, either
after this [c]ourt entered the first dispositional decree on December 1, 2020, or when this [c]ourt modified the
child’s dispositional decree for the last time on March 23, 2022.” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, 216). While we
agree with the trial court, based on our de novo review, we reach the same result but on different grounds.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 7 of 13
ordinary appellate or other direct procedures to correct it. Id. (quoting 46 Am.
Jur. 2d Judgments §§ 30, 31 (1994)).
[14] In its very recent opinion in T.D., our supreme court clarified the concept of a
void judgment within the confines of Indiana Trial Rule 60(B). Specifically,
our supreme court pronounced that
a trial court’s judgment is void if the court lacks personal
jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, or the authority to render
the judgment. That said, we construe “authority” narrowly to
distinguish void errors from voidable legal or procedural errors.
There is a distinct difference between a judgment that the law
does not authorize under any circumstances (a void judgment),
and a judgment authorized by law but derived in violation of law
(a voidable judgment). In the latter scenario, the trial court still
has the requisite authority to act, and thus, the error is a
procedural irregularity that can be cured.
T.D., 219 N.E.3d at 726-27 (internal references omitted). In T.D., our supreme
court was faced with the issue whether a trial court’s failure to comply with the
Juvenile Waiver Statute rendered an agreed delinquency adjudication void or
voidable for purposes of a motion made pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule
60(B)(6). Id. at 727. Despite warning that “given the special caution afforded
to juvenile admissions, a trial court’s failure to comply with the Juvenile
Waiver Statute is particularly alarming,” the court noted that this “failure does
not mean the court lacks the legal authority under any set of circumstances to
adjudicate a juvenile as a delinquent.” Id. “Indeed, nothing in the juvenile
code prohibits a court from entering judgment on an agreed delinquency
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 8 of 13
adjudication despite an invalid waiver of rights.” Id. As such, the supreme
court concluded that “violations of the Juvenile Waiver Statute do not render a
subsequent delinquency adjudication void; they render it voidable because the
error can be cured if challenged.” Id. Applying our supreme court’s holding in
T.D. to the situation before us, we reach a similar result. A.W.’s allegations of
purported deficiencies in admission proceedings and claims of involuntary
admissions do not render a delinquency adjudication void, but merely voidable
as the error can be cured when challenged. Accordingly, as A.W.’s
adjudication cannot be held void, A.W. is foreclosed from proceeding under
Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(6).
III. Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8)
[15] Trial Rule 60(B)(8) permits a party to obtain relief from judgment for “any
reason” other than those set forth in other subsections of the rule that are not
relevant here. T.R. 60(B)(8). To be entitled to relief under this rule, the movant
must file their motion “within a reasonable time” and “allege a meritorious
claim or defense.” T.R. 60(B)(8). Additionally, our precedent requires the
moving party to “demonstrate some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances
justifying equitable relief.” State v. Collier, 61 N.E.3d 265, 268 (Ind. 2016).
[16] Focusing on the reasonable time requirement of T.R. 60(B)(8), the trial court
concluded that
In this instance, an adjudication was entered on September 18,
2020. Counsel for [A.W.] did not enter her appearance until July
2022, and transcripts were requested in August 2022, almost two
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 9 of 13
(2) years after the adjudication. Almost seven (7) months after
counsel received the transcripts was a Motion for Relief filed.
Counsel does not provide specific reasons for the delay, only that
counsel sought relevant documentation and conducted necessary
investigation during those seven (7) months. It cannot be said
that such a delay is timely, particularly in juvenile delinquency
cases that have strict statutory timelines. Furthermore, time was
and is of the essence in this instance, as counsel concedes that
[A.W.] has already completed the sex offender treatment
program within the [DOC], and alleges that such completion is
akin to having already “served his sentence.”
(Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 217). In support of his contention that the trial
court abused its equitable discretion by declaring his T.R. 60(B)(8) motion to be
filed outside the reasonable time parameters, A.W. requests this court to
artificially limit the relevant timeframe in which to consider the reasonableness
requirement as starting after the final modification of his disposition and
wardship to the DOC, rather than when the adjudication was officially
admitted and entered.
[17] However, contrary to A.W.’s request, in making its determination of the
reasonable time requirement, “the court must consider the length of time that
elapsed from the date of the judgment to the date of the filing of the Trial Rule
60 motion, the circumstances of the delay, the diligence exercised by the
movant, and the possibility of prejudice to the opposing party.” Jordan v. State,
549 N.E.2d 382, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. denied. In D.D.J. v. State, 640
N.E.2d 768, 769-70 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied, we calculated the
relevant time period under T.R. 60(B)(8) in collateral attacks on delinquency
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 10 of 13
adjudications as running from the time of the adjudication to the time of the
filing of the motion.
[18] A.W.’s dispositional hearing was conducted on December 1, 2020, and he filed
his T.R. 60(B)(8) motion based on ineffective assistance of counsel almost two-
and-a-half years later, on March 21, 2023. The ineffective assistance of counsel
claim, which is grounded in A.W.’s perceived coerced admission, was available
to him since his adjudication. He appeared in court many times after his
disposition for rehabilitative placement modifications and never lodged a
complaint about the circumstances of his admissions. Furthermore, the State
would be prejudiced if a new fact-finding hearing would be required: one
witness was impaired in her memory due to her young age at the time of the
first factfinding hearing, and the record is silent about the testimonial capacity
of the second victim. See Stewart v. State, 548 N.E.2d 1171, 1176 (Ind. Ct. App.
1990) (“If reasonable likelihood of successful prosecution is materially
diminished by the passage of time attributable to the defendant’s neglect, such
may be deemed a sufficient demonstration of prejudice.”), trans. denied.
Accordingly, based on the lapse of time, the prejudice to the State, and the trial
court’s equitable discretion, we affirm the trial court’s conclusion that A.W.’s
T.R. 60(B)(8) motion was filed untimely. See also D.D.J, 640 N.E.2d at 769-70
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 11 of 13
(holding that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
juvenile’s T.R. 60(B)(8) motion after a two-year delay). 3
III. Evidentiary Hearing
[19] Lastly, A.W. contends that the trial court erred by not conducting an
evidentiary hearing on his T.R. 60(B) motions, as an evidentiary hearing was
mandatory to show that neither A.W.’s counsel nor A.W. realized at the time
of his admissions that the admissions were improperly motivated or coerced.
[20] Indiana Trial Rule 60(D) dictates that the trial court “shall hear any pertinent
evidence” in resolving a motion for relief from judgment. However, when there
is no pertinent evidence to be heard, a hearing is unnecessary. Thompson v.
Thompson, 811 N.E.2d 888, 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Pub. Serv.
Comm’n v. Schaller, 299 N.E.2d 625, 628 (1973) (noting that the language of
Rule 60(D) is mandatory but only for the presentation of “pertinent evidence”)),
reh’g denied, trans. denied. “The catalyst needed to obtain the proper relief is
some admissible evidence, which may be in the form of an affidavit, testimony
of witnesses, or other evidence obtained through discovery[.]” State Farm Fire &
Cas. Co. v. Radcliff, 18 N.E.3d 1006, 1016-17 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
3
Because we affirm the trial court’s ruling based on the timeliness requirement of T.R. 60(B)(8), we do not
analyze A.W.’s argument concerning the existence of a meritorious claim or defense and his demonstration
of some extraordinary or exceptional circumstances justifying equitable relief.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 12 of 13
[21] In the preamble of its decision, the trial court advised that it had considered “all
of the filings in the above cause, and ha[d] reviewed the entire transcript
submitted by [A.W.] marked as ‘Exhibit A.’” (Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p.
214). A.W. did not file any affidavits or other admissible evidence to support
his contention that he had been coerced into his admissions, nor did he specify
in his filings to the court what other pertinent evidence would be needed to
adjudicate his claim. See, e.g., Williams v. Tharp, 934 N.E.2d 1203, 1214-15
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (“Appellants have failed to direct us to any pertinent
evidence that was not before the trial court when it ruled on their motion.”).
Therefore, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred when it did not conduct
an evidentiary hearing on A.W.’s T.R. 60(B) motions.
CONCLUSION
[22] Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
by denying A.W.’s motions for relief from judgment pursuant to T.R. 60(B)(6)
and (8) and the trial court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing.
Affirmed.
Crone, J. and Mathias, J. concur
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JV-1609 | November 29, 2023 Page 13 of 13