F.H. v. State of Indiana

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