J.W. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
33A04-1708-JV-1934
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- In July 2017 J.W. went to Henry County Hospital after a suspected suicide attempt and identified himself as his 18‑year‑old brother, knowingly providing false information.
- After release from the hospital J.W. was taken into state custody and charged as a delinquent for False Informing (and an additional runaway allegation later dismissed).
- At the initial hearing J.W., represented by appointed counsel, orally agreed to waive a formal initial hearing and the pre‑dispositional report, and to admit to the False Informing allegation so disposal could occur quickly.
- The court elicited brief testimony from J.W. to establish a factual basis, adjudicated him delinquent on the False Informing count, dismissed the other allegation, and committed J.W. to the Indiana Department of Correction.
- J.W. appealed, raising multiple challenges to the adjudication and to counsel/waiver procedures.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal as the improper procedural vehicle and remanded to permit J.W. to seek relief under Indiana Trial Rule 60.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of adjudication given alleged failure to give statutory advisements (I.C. §31‑37‑12‑5) | J.W.: court failed to give required advisements so adjudication invalid | State: advisements were discussed and J.W. knowingly admitted; proceeding was proper | Court: appeal is improper vehicle; issues must be raised via T.R. 60 motion, so direct appeal dismissed and remanded for T.R. 60 filing |
| Whether waiver of formal initial hearing and pre‑dispositional report was knowing/voluntary | J.W.: waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made | State: J.W., counsel, and prosecutor agreed; court found admission voluntary | Court: same disposition — not resolved on direct appeal; remand for T.R. 60 relief |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | J.W.: counsel ineffective in advising waiver and plea | State: no direct resolution at appellate stage; procedural remedy is T.R. 60 | Court: claim must be pursued via T.R. 60; appellate dismissal and remand |
| Sufficiency of conduct to constitute delinquent act (would be crime if adult) | J.W.: conduct did not amount to a crime because nurses were not investigating a crime | State: charged under False Informing statute; factual basis elicited | Court: not resolved on appeal; remanded for T.R. 60 process |
Key Cases Cited
- M.Y. v. State, 681 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (juvenile who admits must seek T.R. 60 relief rather than direct appeal)
- Jordan v. State, 512 N.E.2d 407 (Ind. 1987) (juvenile adjudications are not convictions; post‑conviction relief unavailable; T.R. 60 may be avenue)
- Haluska v. State, 663 N.E.2d 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (remand to allow juvenile to file T.R. 60 motion where direct appeal was improper)
- J.H. v. State, 809 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (juvenile must pursue T.R. 60 to challenge voluntariness of admission)
- Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind. 1996) (general rule barring direct appeal of guilty pleas in criminal cases)
- Collins v. State, 676 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (errors premised on guilty pleas are addressed via post‑conviction procedures in criminal context)