D.P., Aрpellant-Respondent, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner.
Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-690
Court of Appeals of Indiana
November 18, 2019
Appeal from the Putnam Circuit Court; The Honorable Matthew L. Headley, Judge; Trial Court Cause No. 67C01-1901-JD-3
Brown, Judge.
Joel C. Wieneke
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
Brooklyn, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Attorney General of Indiana
Angela N. Sanchez
Assistant Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On January 9, 2019, the State filed a delinquency petition alleging thаt in 2012, when D.P. was sixteen years old, he committed an act that would constitute child molesting as a class B felony if committed by an adult. The next day, the State filed a motion to waive juvenile jurisdiction pursuant to
[3] On January 15, 2019, the court held a hearing at which D.P. indicated he is a twenty-three-year-old adult. D.P.‘s counsel indicated that D.P. would admit the allegations, and the court statеd it would not accept the admission with a pending motion to transfer the matter to adult court. The court entered an order approving the filing of the delinquency petition.
[4] On Fеbruary 11, 2019, D.P. filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the court had no subject matter jurisdiction over him at the time the delinquency petition was filed because he was twenty-three years old. He asserted that
[5] At the February 12, 2019 hearing, the court asked D.P.‘s counsel, “are you saying that the State also could not file a charge, a сriminal charge against him
Well, once again, the exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed by juveniles lies with the juvenile court. If the State waits until the juvenile ages out of the system, not only does the juvenile court lose jurisdiction, it doesn‘t suddenly revert to the adult criminal court because they have no jurisdiction under – over crimes committed as a juvenile. So, yes, they – by sitting on the case for six years, that‘s what the result is.
Id. The prosecutor asserted that D.P.‘s counsel was “basically imposing a statute of limitations on child molest allegations” and argued that the offense was recently disclosed. Id.
[6] On February 26, 2019, the court denied D.P.‘s motion to dismiss finding that it had original jurisdiction because the allegation occurred when D.P. was sixteen years old and that the prosecutor properly filed the delinquency petition and had the right to file а waiver request pursuant to
The suggestion by the child that the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction is a non-starter.
I.C. 31-30-2-1 deals with continuing juvenile jurisdiction until 21 (that a child has previously been adjudicated a delinquent and upon his 21st birthday, the juvenile court‘s jurisdiction loses further jurisdiction, [sic] which fact pattern is not present here).This case is really no different procedurally when, for instance, law enforcement/prosecutor files a delinquency petition on a person who is 18 or 19 years old, yet the offense occurred when the person was less than 18. In such an instant, the prosecutor
would still have the opportunity to file/request a waiver into adult court or not (just as he would generally with any 16 or 17 year old). It would be against public policy and legislative intent for the court to grant the Motion to Dismiss. If the court were to grant the Motiоn to Dismiss, that would mean that the statute of limitations for this type of crime for an 18 year old suspect would be approximately 20 years, while for a 17 year old the limitation would be 4 years – clearly not the intent and full reading of the statutes.
Appellant‘s Appendix Volume II at 10. The court certified the order for interlocutory appeal.
Discussion
[7] D.P. argues that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over him or the delinquency petition. He relies upon M.C. v. State, 127 N.E.3d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). He also asserts that
[8] This case requires us to interpret certain statutory provisions. When interpreting a statute, we independently review a statute‘s meaning and apply it to the facts of the case under review. Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201, 204 (Ind. 2002). If a statute is unambiguous, we must give the statute its clear and plain meaning. Id. A statute is unambiguous if it is not susceptible to more than one interpretation. Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley, 744 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2001). If a statute is susceptible to multiple interpretations, we must try to ascertain the legislature‘s intent and interpret the statute so as to effectuate that intent. Bolin, 764 N.E.2d at 204. We presume the legislature intended logical application of the language used in the statute, so as to avoid unjust or absurd results. Id. A statute should be examined аs a whole, avoiding excessive reliance upon a strict literal meaning or the selective reading of individual words. Mayes v. Second Injury Fund, 888 N.E.2d 773, 776 (Ind. 2008).
[9] We also observe that the question of a court‘s jurisdictiоn is a question of law, and we afford no deference to the trial court‘s conclusion. Reynolds v. Dewees, 797 N.E.2d 798, 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). To render a valid judgment, a court must have both subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction. Buckalew v. Buckalew, 754 N.E.2d 896, 898 (Ind. 2001). The question of subject matter jurisdiction entails a determination of whether a court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which a particular case belongs. K.S. v. State, 849 N.E.2d 538, 542 (Ind. 2006) (citing Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 749 (Ind. 2000), reh‘g denied).
[10] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that, “[a]lthough the legislature vested both the juvenile court and the criminal court with ‘original exclusive jurisdiction,’ it is not difficult to imagine instances in which both would have subject matter jurisdiction over a given case.” Twyman v. State, 459 N.E.2d 705, 708 (Ind. 1984). “When a juvenile commits acts which would constitute a crime if he were an adult, he commits an act of delinquеncy, but he has also committed the elements of a crime.” Id. “The age of the offender is determinative of subject matter jurisdiction in the juvenile court, however, it is merely a restriсtion on the personal jurisdiction possessed by a criminal court.” Id.
[11]
[12] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the juvenile court‘s order.
[13] Affirmed.
Altice, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.