C.W. v. State
| Decision Date | 13 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 19A-JV-1077 |
| Citation | 138 N.E.3d 972 (Table) |
| Parties | C.W., Appellant-Respondent, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Petitioner |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorney for Appellant: Cara Schaefer Wieneke, Wieneke Law Office, LLC, Brooklyn, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee: Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General, Evan Matthew Comer, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] C.W. appeals the order ("the Modified Dispositional Order") modifying his disposition from strict formal probation to commitment to the wardship of the Department of Correction ("DOC") for placement at the Indiana Boys School following his adjudication as a delinquent child for committing an act that would be level 6 felony resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. C.W. argues that he was denied due process when the trial court announced his modified disposition without him being be present, that the Modified Dispositional Order does not contain the required statutory findings in support of modification, and that the trial court abused its discretion in modifying his disposition. We conclude that C.W. waived his due process claim, that any error regarding the findings in support of modification does not amount to reversible error, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying his disposition. Therefore, we affirm.
[2] C.W. was born in April 2003. All events relevant to this appeal occurred in 2019. On January 29, police responded to a report of a domestic disturbance at the residence where C.W. lived with his mother, brother, and stepfather. C.W. was heavily intoxicated from ingesting Xanax-laced gummy bears. Tr. Vol. 2 at 8, 14. Police attempted to place C.W. under arrest, but he resisted. He pulled away, and police took him to the ground. While police attempted to handcuff C.W., he continued resisting by kicking his legs, and one of the officers involved suffered a broken fibula.
[3] On February 5, the State filed a petition alleging that C.W. was a delinquent child for committing the following acts: Count 1, level 6 felony resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult; Count 2, class A misdemeanor domestic battery if committed by an adult; and Count 3, class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement if committed by an adult. C.W. was held in the Vigo County Juvenile Center. A hearing on the delinquency petition was held on February 7 and 14. C.W. did not contest Count 1, and he and his mother acknowledged that he had a serious substance abuse problem. Id. at 15-17. Mother testified that C.W. had been so intoxicated the night he was arrested that he was foaming at the mouth and that the police had to carry him to the cell. Id. at 15-16. The trial court entered a true finding on Count 1, dismissed the remaining counts, set a dispositional hearing in thirty days so that C.W. could undergo a drug assessment, and released C.W. from detention.
[4] On March 7, the probation department submitted its predispositional report, in which it recommended a nine-month commitment to Indiana Boys School suspended to strict formal probation and that C.W. undergo a drug assessment and follow any recommendations. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 30. On March 14, the trial court held a dispositional hearing, at which C.W. appeared with his mother and defense counsel. C.W.'s probation officer, Tamara Carter, informed the court that she had contacted C.W.'s school and spoken with the school dean, who confirmed that C.W. had enrolled in school on February 25 but was present for only part of a day on February 26, and missed school on February 27 and 28. The trial court adopted the probation department's recommendations and placed C.W. on nine months' strict formal probation. The court also ordered him to undergo a drug assessment and follow any recommendations, to submit to random drug screens, to enroll in and attend school, and to perform twenty hours of community service. Id. at 31. At the conclusion of the hearing, Carter administered a drug screen to C.W. Initially, C.W. told Carter that he did not want to take a drug screen. Tr. Vol. 2 at 29. He eventually submitted to the drug screen but told Carter that he was not going to pass. Id. He left the probation office angry. Id. at 31. C.W. did not attend school after the hearing. Id.
[5] On March 26, at about 4:00 a.m., police were dispatched to the intersection of Ninth and Washington Streets in Vigo County to investigate a report of an intoxicated person. Id. at 29. The police first encountered C.W.'s mother, who informed them that C.W. had run away from home and was high on Xanax-laced gummy bears. Id. The police found C.W. walking north on Ninth Street. He was stumbling on the sidewalk, was disoriented and confused, and was drooling from his mouth. Id. at 29-30. The police arrested C.W. for public intoxication and transported him to a hospital for evaluation and then to the Vigo County Juvenile Center. That same day, the probation department filed a modification report, recommending that the suspension of C.W.'s commitment to the wardship of the DOC for placement at Indiana Boys School be lifted. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 36.
[6] On April 4, the trial court conducted a modification hearing, at which C.W. appeared with his mother and defense counsel. The court heard testimony from Carter and C.W.'s mother. C.W.'s mother testified that C.W. had an appointment for a drug assessment on April 10 and that she intended to enroll C.W. in GED classes. The trial court ordered C.W. to undergo the drug assessment and set a hearing for April 11. The trial court also issued an order concluding that "good cause" to grant the modification petition existed based on the following:
[C.W.] was placed on probation on March 14, 2019 on charges of Resisting Law Enforcement and Domestic Battery. [C.W.] ran away from home and mother alleged he was high on gummy bears laced with Xanax. [C.W.] was then arrested on March 26, 2019 for public intoxication. [C.W.] has been truant from school since March 14, 2019.
[7] On April 11, the trial court reconvened the modification hearing. C.W. appeared with his mother and defense counsel. Carter confirmed that C.W. had taken the drug assessment and that she had received seven pages of the evaluation, but it did not include a recommendation. Carter told the court that she still recommended that C.W.'s suspension be lifted and that he be placed at Indiana Boys School, where he could receive drug treatment, counseling, and education. Tr. Vol. 2 at 44. Carter opined that C.W. would not otherwise follow through with schooling, drug treatment, or counseling. Id. She informed the court that C.W. had not attended school since the dispositional hearing, and that he had not started on the required community service. C.W.'s mother testified that the recommendations from C.W.'s drug assessment were that he attend three classes a week and submit to random drug screens. Id. at 48. The trial court asked the State if it had any objection to C.W. filing the written recommendations from the drug assessment, and the State agreed that the court should have that information. Id. at 55. The court informed the parties that because it did not have all the information it needed and wanted to look at C.W.'s history in more detail, it would take the matter under advisement to allow C.W. to file the written recommendations from the drug assessment. Id. at 55. The court further explained that it would "get something out on this really quickly after that." Id. Mother asked whether she would have to come back because her work schedule would make that difficult. Id. at 56. The trial court informed mother that she would not have to return to court.
[8] On April 15, the trial court entered the Modified Dispositional Order with the following findings:
Appealed Order at 1. This appeal ensued.
Section 1 – C.W. has waived his due process claim.
[9] Although, C.W. was present at all the hearings held in his juvenile proceedings, he argues that he was denied due process when the trial court announced his modified disposition without him being present. However, C.W. fails to provide the standard for determining what process is due to a child in a delinquency proceeding or present his argument tailored to that standard.1 Accordingly, he has waived this claim due to failure to present a cogent argument. See Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) (); Smith v. State , 822 N.E.2d 193, 202-03 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (), trans. denied .
Section 2 – Any error regarding the trial court's findings supporting the modification of C.W.'s disposition does not amount to reversible error.
To continue reading
Request your trial