DE v. State
962 N.E.2d 94
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- D.E. armed himself with a rifle and attempted to rob an ATM may have involved a police detective who intervened and pursued D.E.
- D.E. and another juvenile, J.S., were apprehended; D.E. was on probation from an earlier delinquency adjudication that involved conduct punishable as a Class B felony if an adult.
- The State alleged D.E. was delinquent for acts that would have been Class D criminal recklessness, Class D pointing a firearm, Class A dangerous possession of a firearm, and Class A resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult.
- During a pre-trial conference, the State offered a plea: D.E. would admit to recklessness and dangerous firearm possession, with two other charges dropped; both D.E. and counsel signed the plea, but D.E.’s mother did not sign.
- The juvenile court explained the plea, and D.E. and his parents acknowledged understanding the waivers and consequences; the continuance was granted for contemplation.
- Dispositional hearings resulted in the court placing D.E. in the Department of Correction (DOC) until age twenty-one or completion of programs, with a recommended minimum of eighteen months in a Juvenile Correctional Facility (JCF).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of waivers in the plea | D.E. argues parents’ rights were improperly waived under Ind. Code § 31-32-5-1 | State contends waivers were valid because D.E. and counsel signed and parents participated at hearings | Plea waivers valid; signatures satisfied statute |
| Meaningful consultation with parents prior to signing | D.E. asserts lack of meaningful consultation with parents before signing | State asserts consultation occurred and parental presence at hearings showed understanding | No reversible error; no demonstrable lack of meaningful consultation |
| Dispositional placement discretion | D.E. contends DOC placement was an abuse of discretion given available less restrictive options | State argues placement was appropriate due to prior rehabilitation attempts being unsuccessful | Not an abuse of discretion; JCF placement supported by prior unsuccessful rehabilitative efforts |
Key Cases Cited
- L.L. v. State, 774 N.E.2d 554 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (discretion in juvenile dispositions and least-harsh disposition principle)
- Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407 (Ind.1987) (juvenile placement options range widely and are not sentences)
- K.A. v. State, 775 N.E.2d 382 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (placement in DOC not abuse when prior efforts were unsuccessful)