Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT T. Edward Page Merrillville, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Ellen H. Meilaender Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

____________________________________________________________________________

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 64S04-0809-JV-483 R.J.G.,

In the

FILED
Mar 10 2009, 9:08 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

Appellant (Respondent below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Petitioner below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Porter Circuit Court, Juvenile Division, No. 64C01-0708-JD-565 The Honorable Mary R. Harper, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 64A04-0803-JV-130 _________________________________ March 10, 2009 Boehm, Justice. We hold that a juvenile court may order a commitment to the Department of Correction and, in the same order, provide for probation following release from the Department of Correction. Facts and Procedural History R.J.G. was fifteen years old in the spring of 2007. On May 21, after selling marijuana to a friend, R.J.G. pointed a gun at his customer. The gun accidentally discharged, shooting the

friend in the mouth and severely injuring him. A search of R.J.G.`s bedroom uncovered drug paraphernalia and a safe containing two guns, cash, a scale, and thirty-four grams of marijuana. The State filed a delinquency petition, alleging that R.J.G. committed acts that would, if committed by an adult, constitute class C felony criminal recklessness, class D felony pointing a firearm, class D felony dealing in marijuana, and class A misdemeanor marijuana possession. R.J.G. pleaded guilty to criminal recklessness and marijuana possession in exchange for dismissal of the other charges. The juvenile court concluded that the appropriate placement for R.J.G. was commitment to the Department of Correction (DOC), specifically the Indiana Boys School, until the age of eighteen, followed by supervised probation until the age of twenty-one. The juvenile court found that this disposition was proper and necessary for the safety of the community and in the best interests of the juvenile because of the seriousness of the crime, the juvenile`s reluctance to have mental health treatment prior to the incident, his lack of remorse, his ability to run a major drug enterprise out of his basement for at least a year, supplying drugs to his friends and neighbors, his lack of parental supervision, [and] his reckless behavior in owning and handling a hand gun which ended in the predictable outcome of serious injury . . . . The juvenile court also ordered that R.J.G. participate in individual counseling, and that after his release, R.J.G. and his family participate in the Community Transition Program and R.J.G. complete 200 hours of community service. The juvenile court held the amount of restitution open until obtaining further documentation. R.J.G. appealed the dispositional order, arguing that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to order both commitment to the DOC and probation in the same order, and also raising other issues that are now moot.1 The State responded that statutes provide the juvenile court with such
The trial court`s order of commitment until age eighteen was a determinate commitment. R.J.G. argued to the Court of Appeals that the juvenile court lacked authority to order a determinate commitment to the DOC because he did not have two unrelated prior adjudications of delinquency. See Ind. Code

Download In the Matter of R.J.G..pdf

Indiana Law