C.C. v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-0812-JV-1067.,49A02-0812-JV-1067. |
| Citation | 907 N.E.2d 556 |
| Parties | C.C., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Michael E. Caudill, Caudill & Associates, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Zachary J. Stock, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
C.C. appeals the juvenile court's true finding of dangerous possession of a firearm, a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult. We affirm.
Did the trial court commit fundamental error by accepting jurisdiction in this case?
On the evening of July 13, 2008, brothers Brian and Michael Murdine left their house in their mother's van. They picked up Ashley Baker and C.C. All four occupants of the van were juveniles. When C.C., age seventeen, got into the van, he was carrying a shotgun covered with a towel. He placed it on the floorboard between the two front seats. Later that night, Brian drove down an alley, stopped the van, picked up the shotgun, and got out of the van. Brian accidentally shot the gun into the ground.
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on July 14, 2008, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police received a report of shots fired. When officers arrived at the scene, witnesses said that someone had fired a shot in the alley north of their residence. They described two white males driving a green van with a gray stripe. An officer later stopped a van matching this description and ordered everyone to get out of the vehicle. C.C., age seventeen, exited first, and the officers asked him if there were any weapons in the van. C.C. stated that his shotgun was inside the van. Police searched the van and found the shotgun. The other occupants of the van told police that C.C. owned the gun.
On July 18, 2008, the State filed a petition alleging that C.C. was a delinquent child because he had committed dangerous possession of a firearm, a class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult, and operating a vehicle without a license, a class C misdemeanor if committed by an adult. Following an initial hearing on July 18, 2008, the juvenile court authorized the State to file these charges against C.C.
On July 22, 2008, C.C. filed a petition challenging the juvenile court's jurisdiction related to the firearm charge. C.C. argued that because the firearm statute was not specifically listed in Indiana Code Section 31-30-1-1 as one of the matters over which the juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction, the juvenile court in this case overextended its jurisdiction.
The juvenile court held a hearing on July 24, 2008, during which it heard argument on the jurisdiction issue. The juvenile court asked the parties to submit additional argument by July 30, 2008. On July 31, 2008, the trial court held another hearing and took the issue under advisement. On August 7, 2008, the court denied C.C.'s motion. On September 26, 2008, the trial court held a denial hearing. The State dismissed the driving without a license charge. After hearing the evidence, the juvenile court made a true finding against C.C. on the firearm charge. C.C. now appeals.
C.C. contends that the juvenile court committed fundamental error by exercising jurisdiction over the State's charge of dangerous possession of a firearm. See Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116, 122 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (). When jurisdictional facts are not in dispute, the question of whether a trial court had jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Id. at 121. The juvenile court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise its authority only in instances specifically designated by the legislature. Id. C.C. claims that the relevant statutes did not authorize the juvenile court to have jurisdiction in his case and that it should have transferred the case to criminal court.
The statute upon which the firearm charge is based, Indiana Code Section 35-47-10-5, states in relevant part that Indiana Code Section 31-37-1-2 states: "A child commits a delinquent act if, before becoming eighteen (18) years of age, the child commits an act that would be an offense if committed by an adult, except an act committed by a person over which the juvenile court lacks jurisdiction under IC 31-30-1." Indiana Code Section 31-30-1-4 specifies that the juvenile court does not have jurisdiction over individuals at least sixteen years old who are charged with certain crimes, including dangerous possession of a firearm by a child, "if charged as a felony[.]"
According to C.C., neither a misdemeanor nor a felony violation of Indiana Code Section 35-47-10-5 qualifies as a "delinquent act" because they would not be considered crimes if committed by an adult. The word "child" limits the statute's application to persons under the age of eighteen. See Ind.Code § 35-47-10-3. Moreover, if the violation is charged as a felony, then it is automatically removed from the juvenile court's jurisdiction pursuant to Indiana Code Section 31-30-1-4. The State counters that the statutes, as well as relevant legislative history, reveal the legislature's intent to include a misdemeanor firearm charge within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. We agree.
Indiana Code Section 31-30-1-11 states in pertinent part as follows: "[I]f a court having criminal jurisdiction determines that a defendant is alleged to have committed a crime before the defendant is eighteen (18) years of age, the court shall immediately transfer the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat. Ass'n
...committee reports, there is little legislative history to examine beyond amendments to the statute. See, e.g., C.C. v. State, 907 N.E.2d 556, 558-59 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). In addition to the presumption against retroactivity, Indiana caselaw recognizes many other familiar presumptions of statut......
-
K.C.G. v. State
...without force, and it has the virtue of reflecting prevailing law as announced by our court of appeals. See, e.g., C.C. v. State , 907 N.E.2d 556, 558 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ; J.S. v. State , 114 N.E.3d 518, 519 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (affirming delinquency adjudication for dangerous possession......
-
State Of Ind. v. Boyle
...otherwise there would have been no need for the General Assembly to have enacted the statute in 2003. See C.C. v. State, 907 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("[I]t is a rule of statutory interpretation that courts will not presume the legislature intended to do a useless thing.. ..") (......
-
D.P. v. State
...that would constitute child molesting as a class B felony if committed by an adult to go entirely unpunished. See C.C. v. State , 907 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("From a common sense standpoint, if we were to follow C.C.'s reasoning to its illogical conclusion, his misdemeanor vio......