Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KATHERINE A. CORNELIUS Marion County Public Defender Agency Appellate Division Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana ZACHARY J. STOCK Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
J.C.C., Appellant-Respondent, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 49A02-0403-JV-266

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Christopher Piazza, Magistrate Cause No. 49D09-0101-JD-379, 49D09-0101-JD-380 and 49D09-0101-JD-389

December 28, 2007

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

NAJAM, Judge

STATEMENT OF THE CASE J.C.C. appeals his three adjudications as a delinquent child for committing nine acts of Child Molesting, as Class B felonies, when committed by an adult. He presents two issues for our review: 1. Whether the juvenile court erred when it ordered that J.C.C. be placed on the sex offender registry. Whether the juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied his Trial Rule 60(B) motion to set aside the adjudications against him.

2.

We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY During the fall of 2000, J.C.C., who was fourteen years old at the time, forced three young boys to engage in various sex acts. The victims' ages ranged from seven to nine years old. J.C.C. used threats of violence to compel the boys to engage in oral and anal sex with him and with each other. Several months later, one of the victims reported the incidents to an adult, who contacted police. The State filed three petitions against J.C.C. alleging his delinquency for child molesting. J.C.C. was represented by private counsel during the joint proceedings before the juvenile court. Following a factfinding hearing, the juvenile court adjudicated J.C.C. a delinquent child on May 29, 2001. The juvenile court did not advise J.C.C. that he had a right to counsel to pursue an appeal. A disposition hearing was held on July 11, and the juvenile court ordered J.C.C. committed to the Indiana Boys' School for two years. J.C.C. and his parents talked to his private counsel about pursuing an appeal, but they

2

decided that they could not afford to hire counsel for an appeal. Accordingly, J.C.C.'s private counsel withdrew her appearance on August 19, 2002. On August 7, 2002, the State filed a petition to have J.C.C. register as a sex offender. On September 9, the juvenile court appointed a public defender to represent J.C.C. Following an evidentiary hearing over the course of October 6, 2003 and February 9, 2004, the juvenile court ordered J.C.C. to register as a sex offender. On March 11, 2004, the juvenile court granted J.C.C.'s request to appeal the order, and this court ordered that J.C.C.'s registration be stayed pending this appeal. In addition, J.C.C.'s appellate counsel obtained permission from this court to pursue relief under Trial Rule 60(B) with the juvenile court. Accordingly, on September 9, 2004, J.C.C. filed a motion alleging that he was entitled to relief because: the juvenile court had not advised J.C.C. of his right to pauper counsel on appeal; and he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The trial court denied the motion. This appeal ensued. DISCUSSION AND DECISION Issue One: Sex Offender Registry J.C.C. first contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to register as a sex offender. In B.J.B. v. State, 805 N.E.2d 870, 872-74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), we explained the law on this issue and our standard of review on appeal: Before a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent for committing a sex offense may be ordered to publicly register as a sex offender, a court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the juvenile is likely to commit another sex offense. See Ind. Code

Download J.C.C. v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law