In re B.D.T.
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Riley, Barnes, Bailey
OPINION
RILEY, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Resрondent, B.D.T., appeals an adjudication finding him to be a delinquent child for committing sexual battery,
Judgment vacated.
ISSUES
B.D.T. raises two issues on appeal, one of which we find dispositive1: whether the juvenile court had jurisdiction over a 16-year old juvenile who was alleged to have committed criminal dеviate conduct.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 1, 1998, M.F., age 15, went to her stepsister‘s house to get ready to watch a parade. While at thе house, M.F.‘s stepbrother, B.D.T., age 16, took her shoe and threw it in his bedroom. M.F. went into B.D.T.‘s bedroom to retrieve her shoе. B.D.T. followed her into the room and shut the door. M.F. testified that B.D.T. “wanted to kiss me and I said `No.‘” (R. 173). M.F. further testified that B.D.T. kissed her regardless of her saying “No.” At some point, the bedroom door became jammed. B.D.T. and M.F. realized that they could not get out of the room. M.F. testified that, while locked in the bedroom, B.D.T. “began to touch me... he put his hands up my shirt ... and down my pants.” (R. 176). When asked “were you able to get him to stop at some point,” M.F. replied “No. I asked him to, but he wouldn‘t stop.” (R. 176).
B.D.T. was charged with criminal deviate conduct,
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
B.D.T. argues that the juvenile court committed fundamental error in failing to transfer jurisdiction of the case to the criminal docket because he was charged with the оffense of criminal deviate conduct. We agree.
(a) The juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over an individual for an alleged violation of:
* * *
(4) IC XX-XX-X-X (criminal deviate conduct);
* * *
if the individual was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the alleged violation.
(b) Once an individual described in subsection (a) has been charged with any crime listed in subsection (a)(1) through (a)(15), the court having adult criminal jurisdiction shall retain jurisdiction over the case even if the individual pleads guilty tо or is convicted of a lesser included offense. A plea of guilty to or a conviction of a lesser inсluded offense does not vest jurisdiction in the juvenile court.
B.D.T. was charged with criminal deviate conduct, which is an оffense listed in the above statute. B.D.T. was adjudged a delinquent child by reason of the offense of sexual battery as an included offense to the charged crime of criminal deviate conduct. On the date of the alleged offense, B.D.T. was 16-years old.
A judgment made when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void. Clark v. State, 727 N.E.2d 18, 20 (Ind.Ct. App.2000).
Jurisdiction is the legal power to entertain any matter or proceeding, and the power to act must be derived from the Constitution оr from some statute. Jurisdiction, in this state, embraces three essential elements: (1) jurisdiction of the subject matter, (2) jurisdiсtion of the person, and (3) jurisdiction of the particular case. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns whethеr or not the particular court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which the particular case belongs. Subject matter jurisdiction must be derived from the Constitution or a statute and cannot be conferred by the consent or agreement of the parties. Neither can an objection to subject matter jurisdiction be waived.
Twyman v. State, 459 N.E.2d 705, 707 (Ind.1984) (citations omitted).
Because B.D.T. was 16-years old when the alleged offense occurred, the juvenile court, by
B.D.T. also argues that jeopardy having attached, the case against him should be dismissed. The State acknowledges that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over B.D.T.‘s case. However, the State maintains that B.D.T. was not placed in jeopardy, because ” `[a]n accused is not put in jеopardy by a judgment of conviction which is void for lack of jurisdiction. When discharged thereunder he may again bе arrested and prosecuted on the original indictment.‘” Majors v. State, 252 Ind. 672, 677, 251 N.E.2d 571, 574 (1969) (quoting Slack v. Grigsby, 229 Ind. 335, 97 N.E.2d 145, 148 (1951)).
In United States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662, 669, 16 S.Ct. 1192, 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896), the United States Supreme Court held that “[a]n acquittal before a court having no jurisdiction is, of course, like all the proceedings in the case, absolutely void, аnd therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offense.” Our state has accepted the general proposition that jeopardy does not attach to a judgment void for lаck of jurisdiction. Majors, 251 N.E.2d at 574.
Consequently, B.D.T. was not put in jeopardy by the juvenile court‘s judgment, because the judgment is void.
Based оn the foregoing, we conclude that the juvenile court committed fundamental error in failing to transfer jurisdiction оf B.D.T.‘s case to the criminal docket.
Judgment vacated.
BARNES, and BAILEY, JJ., concur.